RS67 AnnualReport2012 W Cover

Annual Report
of the
International Whaling Commission
2012
The international whaling commission was constituted under the

international convention for the regulation of whaling signed at
Washington on 2 december 1946
International Whaling Commission

The Red House, 135 Station Road, Impington, Cambridge, UK, CB24 9NP
Tel: +44 (0)1223 233971
Fax: +44 (0)1223 232876
E-mail: secretariat@iwc.int
Cambridge 2013
ISSN: 1561-0721
List of Members of the Commission

Contracting Government
Adherence
Commissioner
Appointment
Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chile
Peoples Republic of China
Colombia
Republic of the Congo
Costa Rica
Cte dIvoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
France
Gabon
The Gambia
Germany
Republic of Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Guinea
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Kiribati
Republic of Korea
Laos
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Mali
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Nauru
21/07/82
18/05/60
10/11/48
20/05/94
15/07/04
17/06/03
26/04/02
04/01/74
10/08/09
01/06/06
14/06/05
06/07/79
24/09/80
22/03/11
29/05/08
24/07/81
08/07/04
10/01/07
26/02/07
26/01/05
23/05/50
18/06/92
30/07/09
10/05/07
10/10/07
07/01/09
23/02/83
03/12/48
08/05/02
17/05/05
02/07/82
17/07/09
16/05/07
07/04/93
16/05/06
29/05/07
21/06/00
01/05/04
10/10/02
09/03/81
02/01/85
07/06/06
06/02/98
21/04/51
02/12/81
28/12/04
29/12/78
22/05/07
25/11/08
10/06/05
17/08/04
01/06/06
23/12/03
30/06/49
15/03/82
16/05/02
12/02/01
15/06/05
Mr. A. Liverpool
Ambassador S. R. Cerutti
Ms. D. Petrachenko
Dr. A. Nouak
Mr. F. Chemay
Ms. B. Wade
Mr. J-B. Degbey
Ambassador M. P. Gama
Mr. S. Vergiev
Mr. H.E. N. Thuok
Dr. B. M. Ousman
Ambassador J. L. Balmaceda
Mr. Li Jianhua
Ms. S. B. Lion
Mr. J.A. Kolelas-Ntoumi
Mrs. A. L. G. Fernndez
Dr. D. Kouakou-Pheny
Not notified
Ms. M. Hadjichristoforou
Mrs. V. Vilimkova
Ms. G. Hundahl
Mr. L. Pascal
Mr. E. R. Alcantara
Mr. D. Ortega
Mr. S. M. Ahmed
Mr. A. Gromov
Ms. P. Blankett
Mrs. M-A. Mortelette
Dr. G. A. Rerambyath
Mr. M. Bah
Mr. W. Duebner
Hon. M. Akyeampong
Ambassador E. Papadogiorgakis
Mr. D. Lett
Dr. F. D. Monge
Mr. O. S. Bald
Mr. I. S. Tour
Mr. Z. Czirak
Mr. J. Gumundsson
Mr. S.S. Garbyal
Mr. J. Fitzgerald
Ms. E. Efrat-Smilg
Mr. G. Ambrosio
Mr K. Kagawa
Not notified
Mrs. R. Nikuata-Rimon
Dr. J-Suk Kang
Dr. B. Khambounheuang
Ms. L. Caplikaite
Mr. C. Origer
Mr. S. Coulibaly
Hon. M. Zackhras
Dr. A. M. Jiddou
Dr. L. Rojas-Bracho
Prof. F. Briand
Mr. D. Batbold
Mr. A. Benabbou
Mr. J. Dowiyogo
02/07/04
21/01/09
09/08/07
09/08/96
03/05/12
17/05/06
03/06/11
19/11/10
24/06/10
14/09/09
04/08/05
03/08/10
06/06/00
06/05/11
21/07/08
19/06/10
16/04/12
13/03/07
21/04/11
01/08/12
10/07/01
23/06/12
22/06/10
02/10/08
04/02/09
03/05/11
03/09/12
13/04/04
23/06/10
01/02/12
13/06/11
25/11/09
09/09/11
05/11/08
06/06/12
29/07/03
11/01/11
06/06/12
11/12/12
15/05/07
07/06/06
03/01/12
03/06/11
07/06/06
27/04/12
01/10/07
24/02/12
10/06/05
16/05/08
19/06/10
16/05/11
10/05/05
13/06/03
22/11/12
13/03/09
20/02/07
Cont.
Contracting Government
Adherence
Commissioner
Appointment
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Oman
Republic of Palau
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
St Kitts and Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent and The Grenadines
Senegal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Togo
Tuvalu
UK
Uruguay
USA
14/06/77
15/06/76
05/06/03
03/03/48
15/07/80
08/05/02
12/06/01
18/06/79
17/04/09
14/05/02
09/04/08
10/11/48
16/04/02
24/06/92
29/06/81
22/07/81
15/07/82
22/03/05
20/09/06
10/05/93
10/11/48
06/07/79
15/07/04
15/06/79
29/05/80
23/06/08
15/06/05
30/06/04
10/11/48
27/09/07
10/11/48
Ms. M. J. Jenniskens
Mr. G. van Bohemen
Mr. S. F. Mller
Mr. O. D. Stenseth
Dr. A. Al-Mazrouai
Mr. V. Uherbelau
Mr. T. A. Guardia
Minister E. Velsquez
Mrs. M. Lesz
Prof. J. M. M. M. Palmeirim
Dr. S. Nicolaev
Mr. V. Y. Ilyashenko
Mr. D. Galassi
Hon. N. A. Carty
Hon. J. Compton-Antoine
Senator E. Snagg
Mr. N. Ousmane
Mrs. Z. Cudrakova
Mr. A. Bibi
Mr. S. Diake
Mr. H. Oosthuizen
Mr. C. Moreno Blanco
Mr. M. Wirjodirjo
Ms L. E. Svensson
Mr. B. Mainini
Mr. G. F. Nanyaro
Dr. A. Domtani
Mr. P. Nelesone
Mr. N. Gooding
Ambassador J. Moreira
Mr. R. Wulff
14/02/12
10/11/10
09/06/08
01/06/11
22/06/10
19/02/09
26/02/10
08/11/11
14/05/09
25/01/06
22/07/08
02/05/95
10/10/02
15/02/13
23/01/12
05/03/03
30/06/10
31/01/12
20/01/10
15/03/04
10/04/06
13/09/12
01/06/11
13/02/13
03/06/05
22/06/09
03/11/09
13/07/04
01/03/12
26/01/09
28/09/12
Dr. S. Brockington, Executive Secretary to the Commission, 18 March 2013
Preface
Welcome to the fifteenth of the series, the Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission.
This report contains the Chairs Report of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the IWC, held in Panama City, Panama in July 2012.
The text of the Convention and its Protocol are also included, as well as the latest versions of the Schedule to the Convention
and the Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations. The Chairs Report includes the reports of the Commissions technical
and working groups as annexes.
At the 64th Annual Meeting, the Commission agreed to move from annual to biennial meetings; thus the next meeting of the
Commission will take place in 2014, probably in September or October. This, of course, has implications for this series of
volumes and we will be reviewing our publications policy in the light of this decision. Information will be found on our website
at http://www.iwc.int.
The cover photograph shows the Panama Canal by night.
G.P. DONOVAN
Editor
Contents
Chairs report of the sixty-FOURTH annual meeting.....7
Financial statement for the year ended 31 August 2012 .153
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 ..163
Full text..165
Protocol..168
Schedule of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946....169
Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations...185
Rules of Proceedure ..187
Financial Regulations ....192
Rules of Debate ....195
Rules of Procedure of the Technical Committee ...196
Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee ..197
Chairs Report
Chairs Report: Contents

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17.
election of chair and vice-chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRoductory items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
Welcome address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Opening statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Secretarys Report on Credentials, Voting Rights and Circular Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Meeting arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Review of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adoption of agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1
South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
Other sanctuary issues raised in the Scientific and Conservation Committees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The iwc in the future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
Commission discussions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
whale stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1
Antarctic minke whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2
Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3
Southern Hemisphere blue whales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4
Western North Pacific gray whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5
Southern Hemisphere right whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6
North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales and small stocks of bowhead whales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7
North Pacific research cruises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
aboriginal subsistence whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2
Aboriginal Whaling Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Working Group (ASWWG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4
Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5
Proposal for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
conservation committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1
Investigation of inedible stinky gray whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2
Ship strikes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3
Southern right whales of Chile-Peru. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4
National Reports on Cetacean Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5
Marine debris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.6
Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean Conservation Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
conservation management plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1
Report of the Scientific Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2
Report of the Conservation Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3
Commission discussions and actions arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
whalewatching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1 Report of the Scientific Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.2 Report of the Conservation Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 Commission discussions and actions arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
whale killing methods and associated welfare issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.1 Data provided on whales killed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2 Improving the humaneness of whaling operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.3 Welfare issues associated with the entanglement of large whales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4 Whale welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
socio-economic implications and small-type whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.1 Commission discussions and action arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
revised management procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.1 Report of the Scientific Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.2 Commission discussions and actions arising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
scientific permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2 Commission discussions and action arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
safety issues at sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catches by non-member nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16.2 Commission discussions and action arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Infractions, 2011 season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.1 Report of the Infractions Sub-Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.2 Commission discussions and action arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
19
24
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
29
29
30
31
31
31
31
32
33
33
34
35
35
35
38
38
39
40
40
41
44
46
46
46
46
46
46
18. Environmental and health issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18.1 State of the Cetacean Environment (SOCER). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.2 POLLUTION 2000+ research programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.3 Cetacean diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.4 The impacts of oil and dispersants on cetaceans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5 Marine renewable energy developments and cetaceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.6 Anthropogenic sound. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.7 Climate change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.8 Ecosystem modelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.9 Proposal for a workshop on anthropogenic impacts to cetaceans in the Arctic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.10 Reports from Contracting Governments on national and regional efforts to monitor and address the impacts of
environmental change on cetaceans and other marine mammals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.11 Health issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.12 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17. Other scientific committee activities, its future work plan and adoption of the
scientific committee report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.1 Small cetaceans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.2 Regional non-lethal research partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3 Other activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.4 Scientific Committee future work plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.5 Adoption of the Scientific Committee Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20. co-operation with other organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.1 Report of the Scientific Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.2 Other reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.3 Commission discussions and action arising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21. NGO address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22. administrative matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22.1 Annual Meeting arrangements and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22.2 The Commissions website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22.3 Operational effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.4 Cost saving measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23. formula for calculating contributions and related matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23.1 Report of the Finance and Administration Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23.2 Commission discussions and action arising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24. Report of the intersessional correspondence group on strengthening iwc financing.
24.1 Report of the Finance and Administration Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.2 Commission discussions and action arising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25. financial statements, budgets and other matters considered by the budgetary subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.1 Review of the Provisional Financial Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.2 Consideration of future budgets, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.3 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26. adoption of the report of the finance and administration committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26.1 Chair of the F&A Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26.2 Adoption of the Report of the Finance and Administration Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27. date and place of forthcoming meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28. Bureau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29. summary of decisions and required actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30. Other matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
Delegates and Observers Attending the 64th Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agenda for the 64th Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resolutions Adopted at the 64th Annual Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Sub-Committee on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Conservation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Infractions Sub-Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catches by IWC Member Nations in the 2011 and 2011/2012 Seasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Finance and Administration Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Report of the Working Group on the Role of Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approved Budget for the two-year period 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approved Research Budget for 2012/13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amendments to the Schedule Adopted at the 64th Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
72
75
77
78
93
107
114
121
122
147
150
151
152
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
Annex F
Annex G
Annex H
Annex I
Annex J
Annex K
Annex L
Annex M
Annex N
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
51
51
51
54
55
57
57
57
57
57
57
59
60
60
65
65
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
annual report of the international whaling commission 2012
SUMMARY OF MAIN OUTCOMES, DECISIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS

FROM THE 64TH ANNUAL MEETING
Issue and Agenda Item Main outcomes
Sanctuaries
A proposed Schedule amendment to create a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary was not adopted.
Item 4
The Future of the IWC The Commission discussed the future of the IWC in light of the process which had taken place
Item 5
from 2007-10, and highlighted a range of suggestions for the next steps in the Commissions
development.
Status of whale stocks Antarctic minke whales
Item 6
The major re-analysis of two decades of data from the IWCs IDCR and SOWER cruises was
Report: Scientific
completed. Total circumpolar estimates are ~720,000 for 1985/86-1990/91 (CPII) and 515,000
Committee
for 1992/93-2003/04 (CPIII). A non-statistically significant decline of about 30% was detected.
(IWC/64/Rep1)
Work to further investigate this apparent decline continues.
Southern Hemisphere humpback and blue whales
An in-depth assessment of the status of humpback whale Breeding Stocks E (western South
Pacific), F (central South Pacific) and D (western Australia) continues and is expected to
be finalised in 2014. The Committee is examining whether sufficient data are available to
undertake separate assessments of blue whales by population.
Southern Hemisphere right whales
An IWC Workshop on the status of Southern Right Whales was held in Buenos Aires in
September 2011. Assessment work is on-going and additional analytical and field work has
been identified. Invaluable long-term datasets have shown that populations in several areas
(southwest Atlantic, southern Africa, Australia) have been recovering. Other populations, e.g.
the Chile-Peru population, remain critically endangered. See also Conservation Management
Plans below.
Western North Pacific gray whales
Particular attention was again given to the critically endangered western North Pacific gray
whale. A Conservation Management Plan for western North Pacific gray whales has been
established.
A two-year telemetry programme undertaken under the auspices of the IWC has found that
some whales from the Sakhalin feeding ground on the western North Pacific migrate across to
the eastern Pacific; a better understanding of population structure is essential and an IWC-led
programme to investigate this is on-going. Continued-operation with the IUCN Western Gray
Whale Advisory Panel is important.
North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales and small stocks of bowhead whales
Grave concern was expressed over these small stocks, where ship strikes and entanglements
are important threats. Five deaths and eleven entanglement cases of the endangered western
North Atlantic right whale population were reported off the US coast between November 2009
and October 2010 despite welcome on-going mitigation efforts.
North Pacific Research cruises
A 5-year proposal for the IWC-POWER (North Pacific Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research)
was endorsed; the broad primary objective is to contribute information on abundance and
trends in abundance of large whales and to identify the causes of any trends that do occur. The
2012 cruise is underway and the 2013 cruise plan will be finalised intersessionally. Japan, the
USA and Korea were thanked and other governments urged to contribute with vessels and/or
personnel if possible.
Small cetaceans
Small cetaceans status and review
Item 19.1
The main focus was a review of the ten species of ziphiids in the North Pacific Ocean and
Reports: Scientific
the northern Indian Ocean. These populations are not well understood and more research
Committee
is required. They are especially vulnerable to military sonar and seismic surveys. Effective
(IWC/64/Rep1);
mitigation is needed and it is strongly recommended that exercises and operations involving
Conservation Committee
use of sonar and seismic equipment should avoid important beaked whale habitat.
(IWC/64/Rep5)
Great concern was reiterated over the fears for the extinction of the vaquita and the need
for immediate action. Concern was also expressed over: unsustainable bycatches of some
populations of harbour porpoises in Europe and franciscana in Brazil; the deliberate killing for
bait in the Amazon of botu and tucuxi; and bycatches of the Hectors dolphin in New Zealand.
Several governments reported on national actions being taken.
The fund for Small Cetacean Conservation Research
Progress reports were received on the nine proposals funded last year under the voluntary fund
for Small Cetacean Conservation Research. Additional donations to the fund were announced
by Italy (15,000), the Netherlands (15,000), the UK (10,000) and a consortium of NGOs
(11,000).
2
Aboriginal subsistence
whaling
Item 7
Reports: Scientific
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep1),
ASW Sub-Committee
(IWC/64/Rep3)
Summary of decisions and required actions
The Commission received a report on the progress towards developing long-term Strike Limit
Algorithms for the Greenland hunts.
Advice on safe catch limits for at least six years was provided by the Scientific Committee for
ASW hunts. Need statements were considered by the ASW Sub-Committee and in the Plenary.
The Commission adopted proposed Schedule amendments for 6-year catch limits for: (1) the
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales; (2) the Eastern stock of gray whales
in the North Pacific; and (3) western North Atlantic humpback whales off St Vincent and The
Grenadines.
The Commission did not adopt a proposed Schedule amendment for 6-year catch limits for
Greenland hunts.
The Commission received a report on progress made in addressing unresolved ASW issues and
approved the recommendations for items considered so far.
Ship strikes
A ship strike data co-ordinator will be appointed to further the IWC ship strike database. Given
Item 8.2
new information on ship strikes from the Arabian Sea and Sri Lanka, the Secretariat will send
Reports: Scientific
a letter to the Sri Lankan Government, drawing their attention to the discussion of this topic
Committee
and ways in which the Commission may assist. Progress reports on mitigation measures were
(IWC/64/Rep1);
received from a number of countries, including the USA and Panama.
Conservation Committee IWC will hold three joint workshops on disentanglement and ship strikes in the wider Caribbean
(IWC/64/Rep5)
with UNEP and SPAW-RAC in 2012-13. The Secretariat will formalise an agreement with
UNEP and SPAW-RAC for collaborative engagement.
The Netherlands and the USA announced their intention to make financial contributions in
support of these workshops.
A strategic plan will be developed for addressing the ship strike issue.
Frdric Chemay (Belgium) was appointed as Chair of the Ship Strikes Working Group of the
Conservation Committee.
Conservation
CMP guidelines, templates and funding principles were adopted. The Scientific Committee
management plans
will develop a list of priority candidates for future CMPs and the Conservation Committee will
(CMPs)
undertake an inventory of cetacean conservation measures in jurisdictions, on a regional basis.
Item 9
CMPs for the Southwest Atlantic Southern right whale and the Southeast Pacific right whale
Reports: Scientific
were adopted.
Committee
Progress was reviewed on work towards developing a CMP for the Arabian Sea humpback
(IWC/64/Rep1);
population. Progress was also reviewed on the existing CMP for Western North Pacific gray
whales.
(IWC/64/Rep5)
A series of recommendations were adopted for cetacean conservation measures in the Pacific
Islands Region, with a focus on Oceania humpback whales. The IWC recognised the work of
SPREP and invited it to participate as an observer to the IWCs Standing Working Group on
CMPs.
Whalewatching
The 5-year strategic plan for whalewatching was adopted.
Item 10
Two ex officio industry representatives will be added to the Conservation Committees SWGReports: Scientific
WW (Standing Working Group on Whalewatching).
Committee
The Secretariat will prepare the following two documents to:
(IWC/64/Rep1);
(i) outline the options and potential costs for technical support and the creation of an online
Handbook; and
(IWC/64/Rep5)
(ii) the use of conservation objectives, to assist the Commission in developing formal
conservation objectives for whalewatching against which to monitor the success (or
otherwise) of measures taken.
The SWG-WW work plan for the proposed intersessional period of 2012-14 was endorsed.
Other regular
The Commission endorsed the Conservation Committees progress with other on-going areas
Conservation
of work, these being: (1) an investigation of inedible stinky gray whales in the Chukotkan
Committee items
aboriginal subsistence hunt; (2) southern right whales in Chile and Peru; (3) National Reports
Item 8
on cetacean conservation; and (4) co-operation with other organisations.
Reports:Conservation
James Gray (UK) was appointed as Vice-Chair of the Conservation Committee.
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep5)
Whale killing methods

and associated welfare
issues (WKM&AWI)
Item 11
Report of the WG on
WKM&AWI
(IWC/64/Rep6)
The Commission welcomed information from four whaling countries on their operations and
one country reported on the euthanasia of stranded animals.
Based on a very successful workshop on welfare issues associated with the entanglement of
large whales, the Commission endorsed a global network of entanglement response operations,
a set of Principles and Guidelines for Entanglement Response and a recommended approach
to capacity building and training including future collaborative work with UNEP-SPAW in the
wider Caribbean (and see Ship Strikes). It also agreed a seven step approach for IWC work
in this regard.
The USA announced a voluntary contribution of $12,000 towards further work on capacity
building for large whale entanglement response.
The Commission agreed future collaborative steps to promoting good animal welfare including:
formation of a working group to review the existing Action Plan and develop a work plan for
future expert workshops beginning with one on euthanasia; the development of a database of
relevant animal welfare science experts; and investigation of co-operation with relevant animal
welfare bodies.
The United Kingdom announced a voluntary contribution of 10,000 to support the costs of a
workshop to examine euthanasia techniques for large whales.
The World Society for the Protection of Animals announced a voluntary contribution of 3,000
towards the intersessional expenses which would be incurred in undertaking intersessional
work on welfare.
Socio-economic
Japan reiterated its concern over the hardship suffered by its four community-based whaling
implications and smallcommunities since the implementation of the commercial whaling moratorium.
type whaling
It introduced an outline proposed Schedule amendment to permit catching of minke whales by
Item 12
small-type whaling vessels. After an exchange of views no consensus was reached and Japan
did not ask for further consideration of its Schedule amendment.
The Revised
Revised Management Procedure (RMP)
Management Scheme
The Commission reviewed progress on the Scientific Committees work on the RMP and
(RMS)
related matters which included:
Item 13
-a review of maximum rates of increase of whale stocks and improved guidelines for surveys
Report of the Scientific
these being of broader conservation and management interest, not just the RMP.
Committee
-the timing of future Implementation Reviews.
(IWC/64/Rep1)
-progress on the Implementation Review for western North Pacific common minke whales
(completion expected 2013).
-the on-going estimation of bycatch this is also of broader conservation and management
interest than just the RMP and the Commission encouraged continued collection of data
where this occurs and initiation of such work where it does not.
Scientific permits and

related issues
Item 14
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep1)
Safety issues at sea

Item 15
Catches by nonmember nations
Item 16
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep1)
Infractions
Item 17
Report of the Infractions
sub-committee
(IWC/64/Rep4)
RMS
No work was undertaken on the Revised Management Scheme.
The Commission endorsed updated guidelines for the scientific review of new and on-going
special permit programmes, especially related to data availability and timing.
The final review of the completed Icelandic programme will occur in 2013. The 6-year review
of the JARPA II programme will occur in 2014.
The Republic of Korea announced it may put forward a proposal to undertake special permit
whaling of common minke whales in its waters. If so this will need to follow the agreed process
for scientific review which has financial implications (see below).
Several countries reiterated their opposition to special permit whaling whilst others reiterated
their support.
Japan drew attention to the violent protest activities against its research vessels in the Southern
Ocean during the 2011/12 season. The Commission was again disturbed to receive reports of
continuing dangerous activity in the Southern Ocean.
The Commission was pleased to receive catch data from Canadas bowhead hunt.
The Secretary will continue to request information on catches and quotas from Canada.
The Secretary will continue to try to obtain information from the Government of Indonesia on
their whale catches.
The Commission reviewed:
infractions reported in the 2011 and 2011/12 seasons;
follow-up reports from previous years;
information on the domestic surveillance of whaling operations; and
information on the provision of data.
Summary of decisions and required actions
Environmental and
Scientific work
health issues
The Commission reviewed progress on the Scientific Committees on-going work on
Item 18
environmental concerns including: Phase II of its POLLUTION 2000+ research programme;
Reports: Scientific
emerging and resurgent diseases (CERD); anthropogenic sound; climate change; and the State
Committee
of the Cetacean Environment Report (that focussed on the Indian Ocean).
(IWC/64/Rep1);
The importance of improved capacity building and guidelines on oil spill response and
prevention were stressed, especially in light of new information received on the 2010 Deepwater
(IWC/64/Rep5)
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Consideration of oils spills will form an important component of a spring 2013 Commission
workshop on Anthropogenic Impacts of Cetaceans in the Arctic.
The Commission noted the potential and actual threats to cetaceans from marine debris and
endorsed a joint Scientific Committee and Conservation Committee workshop on this topic
(provisional date April 2013).
The Commission endorsed a general strategy and principles to minimise environmental threats
posed by interactions between marine renewable developments (wind farms, tidal stream
devices and wave energy converters) and cetaceans.
The importance of the issue of anthropogenic noise was reiterated. Emphasis was placed on
further work to identify geographical and species-specific areas of concern, to better understand
effects of noise on cetaceans and on collaboration with the International Maritime Organisation
on reducing vessel noise.
Regional non-lethal
research partnerships
Item 19.2
Report: Scientific
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep1)
Scientific Committee
working methods
Item 19.3
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep1)
Administration
Item 21
Report of the Finance
and Administration
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep2)
Resolution
Resolution 2012-1 was adopted by consensus. It emphasised the importance of scientific
research with regard to the impact of the degradation of the marine environment on the health
of cetaceans and related human health effects. It will be sent to the World Health Organisation
with a request for increased exchange of information between the IWC and the WHO.
The Commission welcomed intersessional progress with the Southern Ocean Research
Partnership which included updates on the existing projects.
Further international involvement in this programme was encouraged.
The reports from a Symposium entitled Living whales in the Southern Ocean: advances in
methods for non-lethal cetacean research and four associated workshops held in Chile in
March 2012 were also welcomed.
There will be a major multi-year programme entitled the Antarctic Blue Whale Project that
emerged from the planning of what had originally been intended to be a Year of the Blue Whale
project.
The Scientific Committee continued its regular review of its own working methods including
adopting methods to reduce costs of Committee meetings, updating its handbook and providing
assistance to new members of the Committee. The question of the provision of conservation
recommendations for small cetaceans will be considered next year.
The Commission thanked Debi Palka (USA) who had completed her three-year period as
Chair of the Scientific Committee. It welcomed Toshihide Kitakado (Japan) the new Chair and
Caterina Fortuna (Italy) the new Vice-Chair of the Scientific Committee.
The Commission reviewed the F&A Committees report on application of the Commissions
rules regarding quorum, and decided that no action was necessary to update or modify the
Rules of Procedure.
The Commission agreed an F&A Committee recommendation to move to biennial (every 2
years) meetings, with the next meeting scheduled for September/October 2014. The Scientific
Committee will continue to meet annually. The Commission agreed a series of changes to the
Rules of Procedure to enact the change.
Connected with the move to biennial meetings, the Commission also agreed an F&A
Committee recommendation to establish a Bureau to guide the progress of the intersessional
work programme.
The Commission received the report of the F&A Committees Working Group on the Role
of Observers, and the Chair invited observers organisations to speak after all Contracting
Governments on several agenda items.
The Commission welcomed a pre-launch demonstration of the new website, and a number of
Contracting Governments submitted comments to allow the websites further development and
improvement.
The Commission received the report of the F&A Committees Working Group on Assistance to
Governments of Limited Means, and agreed that the group should continue its work.
The Commission received the report of the F&A Committees intersessional group on
strengthening IWC financing, and agreed the group should continue its work.
The Commission agreed an F&A Committee recommendation for future recruitment policy to
the Secretariat to be decided by the Bureau.
Financial contributions The formula for calculating financial contributions (formerly known as the Interim Measure)
formula
which has been in place for several years was adopted, and the word interim removed from
Item 22
its name.
and Administration
Committee
(IWC/64/Rep 2)
Financial statements
The Commission: (1) approved the Provisional Financial Statement for 2011/12 subject to
and budget
audit; (2) adopted a budget for 2012/13 and 2013/14; and (3) agreed that for 2012/14 biennial
Item 24
period, the NGO fee be set at 550 for the first observer and 275 for additional observers and
the media fee be set at 70.
and Administration
The Commission agreed that the length of time served by the Commissions auditors should be
Committee
included in the Secretariats report to the Budgetary Sub-committee, and that the re-appointment
(IWC/64/Rep2)
of the auditor should become a specific agenda item.
The Commission agreed an F&A Committee recommendation for the Secretariat to review the
procedures in the Financial Regulations in order to make it as straightforward as possible for
countries with outstanding debts to repay those debts.
The Commission agreed an F&A Committee recommendation that the Commission should
change its financial year to 1 January-31 December. The Secretariat was requested to develop
a series of options to allow Contracting Governments to pay the amount owing for the four
month bridging period.
Donna Petrachenko (Australia) was re-elected as Chair of the F&A Committee.
Date and place of
No date or place was proposed for the 2014 meeting.
Annual Meetings
The Government of the Republic of Korea kindly agreed to host the Scientific Committee
Item 26
meeting in 2013.
Elections and Bureau
Jeannine Compton-Antoine (St Lucia) was elected as Chair of the Commission and Frederic
Items 1 and 27
Chemay (Belgium) was elected as Vice Chair.
The USA, Panama, Ghana, and Japan were elected to the Bureau. Thus the total membership of
the Bureau will comprise the Chair (St Lucia), the Vice-Chair (Belgium), the Chair of the F&A
Committee (Australia), and the four elected members. The Bureau will replace the Advisory
Committee.
Chairs Report of the 64th Annual Meeting

1. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
This item was originally scheduled to have been first on
the order of business but was heard instead at the end of
the meeting. The Commission elected, by consensus, Ms
Jeannine Compton-Antoine (St Lucia) and Mr Frdric
Chemay (Belgium) as Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
respectively.
2. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS
The 64th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) took place at the El Panama Conference
Centre, Panama City, Panama from the 2-6 July 2012.
Mr Bruno Mainini (Switzerland) acted as Chair for
the meeting which was attended by 66 of the 89 Contracting Governments. Observers from one non-member
government, six intergovernmental organisations, and 44
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were also present.
A list of the delegates and observers attending the meeting is
given as Annex A. The associated meeting of the Scientific
Committee was also held at the El Panama Conference
Centre from 11-23 June 2012 and the Commissions other
sub-groups met from 25-28 June 2012.
2.1 Welcome address
The address was given by His Excellency Roberto
Henriquez, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Panama
who welcomed delegates to Panama. He said that Panamas
hosting of IWC/64 was a clear indication of its commitment
to the international process of negotiation, and in particular
its support to the different international organisations which
work to conserve ecosystems.
He noted that Panama had recently shown both local and
international commitment to the protection of cetaceans. A
law passed in 2005 established Panamas marine corridor
for the protection of marine mammals and also provided a
framework for the application of relevant policies including
research, whalewatching, recreation, education, research,
field therapy and also programmes for environmental
awareness. Panama had declared marine mammals to be
in need of conservation and preservation in order for them
to re-establish and develop their populations. The law was
strengthened by a number of regulations designed to ensure
that it will be enforced.
The Minister reported that Panama was currently
reviewing a draft order to create a national network for the
rescue of stranded marine mammals. The draft national
plan for stranded whales had been developed and was
operated in conjunction with other institutions and tourism
authorities so as to achieve the necessary international
cooperation. Panama had also taken the initiative to educate
their own citizens in conducting responsible and sustainable
whalewatching in order to achieve the greatest possible
benefit for all involved.
The minister invited the IWC to conduct this years
meeting with a positive and constructive spirit, especially
given the challenging topics facing the IWC as it undergoes
its process of change. He hoped that the meeting would
mark a positive step forward so that the Commission could
respond to the concerns of the international community.
He stated that Panama would continue to work with the
Commission and the other States that are involved in order
to achieve agreement. In closing he encouraged everyone
to enjoy their stay in Panama and to appreciate the many

advantages that the country had to offer.
The response was given by Dr Simon Brockington,
the Executive Secretary of the IWC. He referred to the
difficulty of the issues faced by the IWC and recognised
the organisations strengths. In particular, he noted the
commitment of the Contracting Parties and the increased
amount of intersessional work which had taken place both
prior to arrival in Panama and during the sub-committee
week. He acknowledged the on-going progress with
governance reform that had started with the consensus
adoption of Resolution 2011-1 at IWC/63 and the present
opportunity to move to biennial meetings. Finally, he referred
to the considerable support provided to the Commission
by the Scientific Committee, especially in relation to
the Committees ability to assemble and communicate
knowledge on the state of whale stocks and the environment.
In closing he thanked the Government of Panama for their
comprehensive arrangements to host IWC/64, and wished
all delegates and observers a successful meeting.
2.2 Opening Statements
Opening Statements from Contracting Governments and
Observers were received in writing and can be found on the
IWC website1.
2.3 Secretarys Report on Credentials, Voting Rights
and Circular Communications
The Secretary reported that the Credentials Committee
(comprising Japan, New Zealand and the Secretary) had
met on the previous evening (1 July 2012). All credentials
were in order except for those from the representative of the
Government of Peru2.
At the start of the meeting voting rights were suspended
for Belize, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Cte dIvoire,
Dominica, Gambia, Greece, Guatemala, Republic of
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania,
Nicaragua, Romania, Senegal, Slovak Republic and
Suriname. The Secretary noted that if and when voting
commenced he would call on San Marino (if present) to vote
first.
A new Rule of Procedure (P.3) introduced in 2011
required all individual and circular communications from
the Chair or Secretary to Contracting Governments to be
placed on the Commissions public website. The Secretary
reported that this had been achieved, and also confirmed that
no confidential communications had been withheld from the
website since the Commissions previous meeting.
2.4 Meeting arrangements
The Chair referred to the importance of allowing all
Contracting Governments to express their points of view,
and hoped that this would be achieved without interruption.
He also requested that calls for points of order be kept to a
minimum.
The Chair confirmed the Commissions arrangements
for speaking rights for representatives of non-member
governments and other intergovernmental organisations, i.e.
that they would be permitted to make one intervention on a
substantive agenda item.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/iwc64docs.
Peru subsequently submitted its credentials later in the meeting.
1
2
sixty-fourth annual meeting
With regard to Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

observers the Chair planned to allow interventions on five
items, with a maximum of five minutes per item. He invited
a maximum of ten representatives of the NGOs present to
meet with him during the lunchtime recess on 2 July 2012
to identify the items in advance. Depending on the rate of
progress during the week the Chair indicated that he would
allow further interventions from NGO observers if time
permitted.
2.5 Review of documents
The Chair drew attention to document IWC/64/02 which
was the list of documents to be considered at the 64th Annual
Meeting. This list is provided at Annex C.
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The Chair drew attention to the Annotated Provisional
Agenda and to his proposed order of business.
Denmark noted that it had a dual capacity, both as a
member of the European Union (EU) and simultaneously as
a representative of Greenland and the Faroe Islands which
are not members of the EU. Denmark stated that it generally
aligns itself with the views and statements made on behalf
of the EU, but that its comments at IWC/64 would be on
behalf of Greenland and the Faroe Islands when there was a
divergence of interest.
The Agenda was adopted by the meeting and is given as
Annex B.
4. SANCTUARIES
4.1 South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
4.1.1 Proposal for the establishment of a South Atlantic
Whale Sanctuary
Brazil introduced a proposal to establish a South Atlantic
Whale Sanctuary which was co-sponsored by Argentina,
Brazil, South Africa and Uruguay. The same proposal had
been submitted each year between 2001 and 2008, and
also in 2011, with the decision on the 2011 proposal being
deferred to the present meeting. The proposal was to add
a new paragraph 7(c) to Chapter III of the Schedule of the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
(1946), and was the same as the one submitted to IWC/63
in 2011 with the exception of modification to the wording
regarding coastal waters under national jurisdiction:
In accordance with Article V(1)(c) of the Convention, commercial
whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is
prohibited in a region designated as the South Atlantic Whale
Sanctuary. This Sanctuary comprises the waters of the South Atlantic
Ocean enclosed by the following line: starting from the Equator, then
generally south following the eastern coastline of South America to
the coast of Tierra del Fuego and, starting from a point situated at Lat
5507,3S Long 06625,0W; thence to the point Lat 5511,0S Long
06604,7W; thence to the point Lat 5522,9S Long 06543,6W;
thence due South to Parallel 5622,8S; thence to the point Lat
5622,8S Long 06716,0W; thence due South, along the Cape Horn
Meridian, to 60S, where it reaches the boundary of the Southern
Ocean Sanctuary; thence due east following the boundaries of this
Sanctuary to the point where it reaches the boundary of the Indian
Ocean Sanctuary at 40S; thence due north following the boundary
of this Sanctuary until it reaches the coast of South Africa; thence it
follows the coastline of Africa to the west and north until it reaches the
Equator; thence due west to the coast of Brazil, closing the perimeter
at the starting point. This prohibition shall be reviewed twenty years
after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten-year intervals, and
could be revised at such times by the Commission. Nothing in this
sub-paragraph shall prejudice the current or future sovereign rights of
coastal states according to, inter alia, the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea. With the exception of Brazil, this provision
does not apply to waters under the national jurisdiction, according to
its current delimitation or another that may be established in the future,

of coastal states within the area described above, unless those States
notify the Secretariat to the contrary and this information is transmitted
to the Contracting Governments.
Brazil stated that the primary intention in creating the

Sanctuary was to support the biodiversity, conservation
and non-lethal use of whale resources in the South Atlantic
Ocean. The Sanctuary was intended to maximise the rate of
recovery of whale populations and to promote the long term
conservation of whales with particular emphasis on breeding
and calving areas and migratory pathways. The Sanctuary
would also: (1) stimulate co-ordinated research programmes
between developing countries and the IWC; (2) develop
the sustainable and non-lethal utilisation of whales through
ecotourism and whalewatching; (3) provide a framework
for the development of measures at an ocean-basin level;
and (4) integrate national and regional conservation and
management strategies while taking into account the rights
and responsibilities of coastal states. Brazil hoped that
the proposal to amend the Schedule could be accepted by
consensus.
4.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
India, Colombia, Ecuador, Australia, Chile, Mexico,
Cyprus (speaking on behalf of the European Union member
states present at IWC/64) and Switzerland recorded their
support for the proposal. India and Colombia re-iterated
their commitment to conservation and non-lethal use
of cetaceans, and Colombia noted the great economic
advantages that whalewatching and ecotourism activities
brought to vulnerable coastal communities. Ecuador stated
that the Sanctuary would maintain the cetacean populations
in the area and recalled that it had recognised its territorial
waters as a whale sanctuary since 1990. Mexico said that
there were six measurable objectives associated with the
creation of the Sanctuary, the prime one being to allow
the recovery rate of cetaceans to increase to its maximum
capacity. Although there is no current commercial whaling,
there had been previously and not all stocks had recovered
to their historical levels.
Australia re-iterated its commitment to whale sanctuaries
as an essential tool for the protection of whales and the
broader marine environment. It stated that the creation of
Sanctuaries was consistent with the ICRW and that their
purpose was to benefit long-term whale conservation by
facilitating recovery through protection of feeding and
breeding grounds as well as migratory routes. They also
provided economic benefits by allowing the development
of ecotourism and whalewatching, promoted international
collaborative research, and increased public awareness
and appreciation of the value and vulnerability of marine
ecosystems. Australia said that its Prime Minister had recently
re-affirmed the importance of area-based conservation
measures at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development. It stated that no commercial whaling or
special permit whaling should be allowed in this proposed
new Sanctuary or any other IWC Sanctuary, and it believed
the Commission should adopt an integrated approach to
conservation with the moratorium being complementary to,
rather than an alternative to whale sanctuaries.
Japan, St Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Norway
and Iceland opposed the proposal. Japan said that the
proposal did not contain specific or measurable objectives,
and that it represented a shotgun approach to conservation
whereby a large area would be protected with little rationale
for boundary selection or establishment of management
regimes. Japan and Antigua and Barbuda noted there was no
support from the Scientific Committee for the proposal, and

as such was contrary to the intention of Article V paragraph
2(b) of the ICRW 1946 which required amendments to the
Schedule to be based on scientific findings. Japan noted
that a moratorium on commercial whaling was already in
place and therefore there was no requirement for additional
measures, especially with the recovery of cetacean resources
already underway.
St Kitts and Nevis said that the IWC represented just
under half the countries in the international community and
that the management of high seas living resources was the
business of the entire international community and not just a
relatively small number of states. St Kitts and Nevis, Antigua
and Barbuda and Iceland questioned why the proposing
countries had not included their own national waters as part
of the Sanctuary, especially given the great implications of
the Sanctuary on other maritime users, particularly fisheries
and transport. Antigua and Barbuda re-iterated its earlier
request for consultation with peoples in coastal states whose
livelihoods may be affected by the establishment of the
Sanctuary. St Kitts and Nevis noted that no other competent
international organisations had supported the Sanctuary and
expressed its concern that the proposal would ultimately lead
to the closing off of the oceans from the rights and privileges
of developing coastal states.
Norway supported the use of whale sanctuaries when
they were scientifically justified. However it noted there was
no scientific support for this proposal and as such it could
not support it. Icelands position was that no scientific or
conservation advances could be gained by the establishment
of the Sanctuary. Noting that there was no current whaling
in the area, and that the conservation measures under the
auspices of the IWC were possibly the most conservative of
any international natural resource management organisation,
Iceland considered that the proposed sanctuary could not
provide any additional conservation benefits. It also noted
that the proponents were predominantly from the western
side of the South Atlantic, and that the proposal would have
consequences for states on the eastern side, many of whom
opposed the proposal.
In the absence of consensus the Chair asked the sponsors
how they would like to proceed. In response, Brazil referred
to the lengthy discussions that had taken place on its proposal,
not just at IWC/63 in 2011 but also at many meetings since
2001, and accordingly asked for the proposal to be put to
a vote. The result of the vote was that the proposal failed
to achieve the required three-quarter majority support,
there being 38 votes in support, 21 votes against and two
abstentions.
Denmark explained its vote of support by recalling
that on previous occasions it had announced its support
for real sanctuaries which fulfilled a number of defining
requirements. However, this year, Denmark had decided to
vote yes. Despite this, Denmark stated that in future it would
maintain its traditional conditions to new Sanctuaries, not
least that they would require a positive recommendation
from the Scientific Committee and that the support of
coastal states would be of crucial importance. Denmark also
stated that new proposals for Sanctuaries should contain
provisions to regulate all human activities including for
example fishing, sea transport and oil drilling.
Brazil expressed its disappointment at the result. It
thanked those Contracting Governments who had supported
the proposal and the very transparent process by which the
decision had been taken. Noting that all previous Sanctuaries
established at IWC had been done so through a vote, it said
that it saw the result not as an end point but instead as the
starting point of a new process. Norway requested that if
a proposal for a South Atlantic Sanctuary was to be tabled
again, that it would be dealt with as a new proposal and given
a full and thorough review by the Scientific Committee.
4.2 Other Sanctuary issues raised in the Scientific and
Conservation Committees
4.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
No new Sanctuary proposals had been received by the
Scientific Committee.
4.2.2 Report of the Conservation Committee
The Chair of the Conservation Committee referred to the
second International Conference on Marine Mammal
Protected Areas (MMPAs) which had been held in
Martinique in November 2011 and which sought solutions
to shared problems related to marine mammal conservation
and to MMPA network design and management. A secondary
goal was to orient those working in MMPAs to set protected
areas in the broader context of marine management in order
to ensure that MMPAs are not marginalised as marine
spatial planning work advances. The conference theme
was endangered species which included river dolphins and
other species of large and small cetaceans as well as special
attention to the endangered vaquita.
The USA highlighted the sister sanctuary agreement
between the USA and France signed in September 2011
to protect humpback whales that migrate between the US
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the Agoa
Marine Mammal Sanctuary in the Caribbeans French
Antilles.
5. THE IWC IN THE FUTURE
5.1 Introduction
The Chair referred to the agreement made at IWC/63 in 2011
to: (1) encourage continuing dialogue amongst Contracting
Governments regarding the future of the IWC; (2) continue
to build trust by encouraging Contracting Governments
to coordinate proposals as widely as possible prior to
their submission to the Commission; and (3) encourage
Contracting Governments to continue to cooperate in taking
forward the work of the Commission, notwithstanding their
different views regarding the conservation of whales and the
management of whaling.
5.2 Commission discussions
Japan described the agreement made at IWC/63 in 2011 to
continue dialogue to build mutual trust and collaboration as
indispensable. It referred to the growing consensus being
established around the proposal to move to biennial meetings
as an example of effective procedures within the IWC.
New Zealand recalled that the Commissions membership
had entered into discussions under this item united in the
view that action was needed to resolve the deep divisions that
prevented the IWC from taking meaningful action on many
of the serious issues that had been before the Commission
for many years. From New Zealands perspective these
issues were:
(1) the special permit whaling carried out by Japan in the
Southern Ocean and the North Pacific;
(2) commercial whaling under reservation by Iceland and
objection by Norway in the North Atlantic;
(3) the continued impass on the establishment of the South
Atlantic Whale Sanctuary; and
10
(4) the willingness of a significant proportion of the

membership to take part in and be guided by the discussions of the Conservation Committee.
New Zealand noted these issues still divided the
Commission and believed that it will need to come back to
them again when the membership is willing to engage in
the same spirit that characterised the discussions in 2007-10.
The Russian Federation recalled the extensive progress
made during the Future of the IWC process and asked
whether the work would continue. It suggested the work of
the Small Working Group established during 2007-10 should
continue so as to provide for the adoption of a package of
measures which would include solutions to issues on global
sanctuaries, strike limits for small-type whaling and all the
issues of the IWCs future. It requested discussion regarding
this suggestion with the aim of establishing when the Small
Working Group could re-assemble, and which issues it
should be tasked with.
India said that it believed in conservation and that it did
not support the exploitation of whales, and hence it was
of the view that the moratorium should continue. It said
that the IWC played an important role in the conservation
of whales and that this must be carried out by all member
countries. It should be achieved through the development
of a comprehensive plan of action to recover depleted
whale populations and address all threats to cetaceans
including bycatch, ship strikes, ocean noise, pollution and
the impact of climate change. Given these diverse roles,
India suggested that the IWC be re-named the International
Whales Commission.
The Republic of Guinea referred to the excellent
work of the Scientific Committee and requested Commission members to accept the Scientific Committees
recommendations and to avoid antagonism. It stated that
avoiding voting was important.
Australia considered that the Commission should engage
in a ground-up approach focusing on areas where agreement
can be reached. It said that over the past few years the IWC
had made significant progress on a range of financial and
administrative governance reforms as well as conservation
and science initiatives. Together these had helped to
ensure there was a greater focus by the IWC on cetacean
conservation whilst also improving the transparency and
accountability of the Commission. Australia considered that
through these reforms, the Commission could undertake
work in line with the best practice and approaches of
other international organisations and it acknowledged
the important work undertaken by the Commissions
Committees and intersessional groups. It believed that the
IWC remained the appropriate international organisation
to address the conservation management of whales and it
believed that when consensus could not be achieved then a
proper democratic vote should occur. Australia also stated
that it considered the remit of the Small Working Group
set up from 2007-10 to be over, and that its work had been
formally completed at previous meetings.
Mexico recalled that several previous processes to
resolve the future of the Commission had all failed, and that
before embarking on a new process it would be appropriate
to analyse the reasons for past failure. As an alternative
Mexico said that the Commission should seek a bottom-up
process and to look for issues where commonality existed
(e.g. marine debris) and which would help the Commission
work towards healthy whale populations and to maintain the
functional elements of the ecosystem.
Argentina said that significant progress had been made
over the last few years especially regarding the structure of
the organisation. It considered that advances to find common

ground had taken place in many areas including Sanctuaries,
marine debris, climate change and other environmental
matters. Argentina considered that the remit of the Small
Working Group had ended at IWC/62 in 2010, but expressed
its willingness to take part in all dialogue to modernise the
Commission. Ecuador supported the comments by Australia
and Argentina, and recognised the important efforts made by
the IWC in matters related to whale conservation. Colombia
noted the progress made with the conservation agenda, and
said it was important to further strengthen the dialogue
within the Commission so that all members were able to
participate in the Commissions conservation mechanisms.
Korea referred to the existing divisions over whaling
within the Commission and re-affirmed its commitment
to the conservation and sustainable use of marine living
resources. It considered that the stalemate within the
Commission could only be broken by a commitment to the
guiding principles embedded in the ICRW. It appreciated the
co-operative spirit seen at IWC/63 in 2011 and expected that
this same spirit would be applied to resolving the sensitive
issues ahead during the present meeting.
Monaco believed that substantial teamwork was required
to resolve the IWCs difficulties but there were also indicators
of progress in the conservation and management of whales,
as seen by the achievements made in the Conservation
Committee. It remarked that the main problem facing the
Commission was that its own Resolutions were ignored by
some members, especially regarding the moratorium within
the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. It commented that voting
was a normal democratic process when consensus cannot
be reached. Chile also recognised the IWCs achievements,
and echoed the statements of Australia and Monaco that
voting should be used when consensus could not be reached.
Belgium highlighted three items that would assist the
future development of the Commission, these being: (1)
to strengthen the credibility and scientific capacity of the
Commission with regard to both large and small cetaceans;
(2) to improve the governance structure and to particularly
pay attention to social issues; and (3) to further improve the
IWCs collaboration with other organisations.
In closing the discussion, the Chair stated that consensus
should always be the desired outcome but if that is not
possible then voting should be used. He said that if voting
was handled effectively, as it had been during the earlier
discussion on the proposed South Atlantic Sanctuary3 then
it represented progress in comparison to the way it was
previously conducted by the IWC.
6. WHALE STOCKS
6.1 Antarctic minke whales
6.1.1 Report of the Scientific Committee4
The Chair of the Scientific Committee referred to the
Committees ongoing work to conduct an in-depth
assessment of Antarctic minke whales. In-depth assessments
allow the Committee to determine the present status of
stocks compared to their status in the past and to look at
any trends in population level and possible causes of change.
Ultimately, the assessments are intended to identify if there
are anthropogenic threats to the population status that need
to be addressed, as well as highlighting priority species,
populations and/or human activities that require action.
See Item 4.1.
For a full account see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 10.1
[2013].
3
4
11

Table 1
Estimates of abundance for Antarctic minke whales for CPII (1985/86-1990/91) and CPIII (1992/93-2003/04). See text.
Management Area
CPII
II
III
IV
VI
Total
86,000
85,000
130,000
120,000
93,000
87,000
55,000
51,000
300,000
286,000
56,000
50,000
720,000
678,000
II
III
IV
VI
Total
Survey once
CNB
39,000
34,000
57,000
58,000
94,000
69,000
60,000
56,000
184,000
180,000
81,000
72,000
515,000
470,000
CPIII:CPII
0.40
0.49
0.79
1.09
0.63
1.44
0.69
Survey once
CNB
CPIII
For Antarctic minke whales, an ongoing issue was

to develop a final set of abundance estimates from the
international cruises undertaken under the auspices of the
IWC (known as the IDCR and then SOWER cruises) obtained
during the 1978/79-2003/04 austral summer seasons. Three
sets of circumpolar (CP) cruises were undertaken and
analytical efforts have focused on CPII (1985/86-1990/91)
and CPIII (1992/93-2003/04). At IWC/62 in 2010, the
Committee had established two sets of abundance estimates
using two different analytical techniques. These estimates
differed appreciably from each other, and following
considerable extra work by the Committee in 2011 and 2012,
the Chair of the Scientific Committee this year reported
that the Committee has agreed final estimates for each of
the survey areas. These can be seen in Table 1. The best
estimates for the maximum extent of the Management Areas
(hereafter Areas) that could be surveyed (for a number
of logistical and environment-related reasons the extent
of the Areas that could be successfully surveyed changed
with time) are labelled survey once. They are rounded to
the nearest thousand animals. The uncertainty (CV) around
the estimates for each is around 0.2 while the uncertainty
around the total Antarctic estimates is around 0.1. These
values increase if the additional variance associated with the
different distribution of animals between surveys is taken
into account; for the circumpolar estimates the CV becomes
about 0.18.
In summary, the new agreed estimates for the surveyonce case are 720,000 (95% CI 512,000; 1,012,000) for CPII
and 515,000 (95% CI 361,000; 733,000) for CPIII (1992/932003/04). The estimates are to some degree underestimates
because some minke whales would have been outside the
northern and southern survey boundaries.
Trends over time are of major interest in an in-depth
assessment. The most appropriate estimates to examine
are the consistent northern boundary (CNB in the table)
estimates which have been corrected to make sure they are
most comparable over time. These can also be seen in Table
1. The results also show that the biggest declines occurred in
Areas I and II whereas the estimates in Areas IV showed no
decline and in Area VI increased.
These corrected estimates over the entire Antarctic show
a more recent total abundance estimate of around 30% lower
than the earlier estimates. The confidence interval for the
ratio between these two estimates includes 1.0 and thus a
hypothesis of no change in the estimated overall abundance
cannot be rejected. The Committee believes that the
estimates probably represent a change and so is exploring
possible causes for the decline in the estimates. The aim is
AnnualaReport
2012\ChairsRepTables.doc
toC:\Andrea\AC
see if they represent
true decline
in numbers rather than
a result of e.g. changes in ice extent or distribution.
An in-depth assessment also needs information on stock

structure to determine status and assess risks. For Antarctic
minke whales, there are two genetically distinct populations
in Area IV east and Area IV west. The Committee welcomed
a new simple and effective method to determine the
boundary between these two populations which appears to
be a soft boundary. This moves every year and appears to
be sex-specific.
A population dynamics model containing all of this
information will allow determination of the status, changes
in abundance and carrying capacity. The model also requires
information on catches and biological information on length,
age, and sex. Initial results of these findings are expected
next year.
Although the IDCR/SOWER series of cruises has
finished the Japanese dedicated sightings surveys are still
being conducted. With Scientific Committee approval
with respect to methods, Japan was scheduled to conduct a
dedicated sighting survey in Area III east, Area IV and Area
V west. The Committee expressed regret that the actions of
a protest group prevented the sighting survey in 2011/12.
These surveys are the only dedicated cetacean sighting
surveys in this region and so are very valuable to the work
of the Committee.
It is planned to carry out the same survey in 2012/13.
The primary objective is the estimation of abundance of
Antarctic minke whales using agreed methods. In addition,
opportunistic biopsy and photo-id studies of blue whales,
southern right whales and humpback whales will be
undertaken. A cruise report will be submitted next year. The
Scientific Committee reviewed and endorsed these plans.
Australia, Mexico, Japan and India thanked the Scientific
Committee for their extensive work to resolve the population
estimates of Antarctic minke whales. Australia said that
the new estimates would be important complements to
other Southern Ocean initiatives including the research
projects being undertaken both through the Southern Ocean
Research Partnership (SORP) and by the Commission for
the Conservation for Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR). Australia noted the decline between the two
minke whale population estimates was not statistically
significant, and that while a decline was most likely the
data included the possibility that the population remained
stable or even increased. This underlined the importance
of continuing to work in a non-lethal way in the Southern
Ocean to investigate whales and their environments.
Japan said the estimates were based in part on sightings
29
January
2013
15:23areas 1with the exception of those
surveys
from
designated
areas where pack ice prevented access, and hoped that it
12
would be possible to establish the reason for the different

estimates between CPII and CPIII. Mexico also noted the
possibility of the minke whale population decline, and
asked whether the Scientific Committee had investigated
ecosystem effects or climatic disruptions as underlying
causes.
The Commission noted this part of the Scientific
Committees report and endorsed its recommendations.
6.2 Southern Hemisphere humpback whales
The Scientific Committee has been undertaking in-depth
assessments of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales
since 1992. Seven Breeding Stocks (labelled BS A-G) were
recognised which were connected to feeding grounds in
the Southern Ocean. Assessments for four of the Breeding
Stocks have already been completed, these being:
BSA (eastern South America);
BSC (eastern Africa);
BSD (western Australia); and
BSG (western South America).
In 2012, the Scientific Committee focused on Breeding
Stocks E (western South Pacific) and F (central South
Pacific). These assessments took into consideration possible
mixing of Breeding Stocks D and E on the feeding grounds.
At the start of the process the available data sets were
assessed for these areas and a simple assessment model
was used. The Committee has now agreed on a series of
recommendations for the input data, whale movement
models and population dynamics model structure to allow
the assessment to progress. It planned to see results of these
more realistic models during the year and then to finalise the
in-depth assessment in 2014.
New data was reviewed on the other Southern
Hemisphere Breeding Stocks that will eventually be used in
future updated assessments and some of this information is
from local countries.
An update had also been provided on the IWCs Antarctic
Humpback Whale Photo-Identification Catalogue that now
has over 4,600 fluke photographs. New effort was focused
on obtaining photographs from eco-tourism cruise ships
that sail in the Antarctic, in addition to those from scientific
researchers. This catalogue has been and will continue to be
extremely important in population assessments.
India welcomed the information on the Breeding Stocks of
Southern Hemisphere humpback whales and looked forward
to the development of a conservation plan between the range
state governments for the small populations of these whales
along the western coast of Africa from Guinea to South
Africa.
Committees report and endorsed any recommendations.
6.3 Southern Hemisphere blue whales
The Scientific Committee completed its circumpolar indepth assessment of Antarctic blue whales in 2008. The
assessment indicated that although this population is still
severely depleted it appears to be increasing at around
8% annually. The Committee is now examining whether
[2013].
6
[2013].
separate assessments can be carried out by population

and Management Area. This will require information on
abundance, distribution and stock structure by area and the
Committee received additional relevant information this
year.
Updates were received on the two Southern Hemisphere
blue whale photo-identification catalogues including cooperative work. The photos of blue whales from the Japanese
special permit programmes have been submitted to the
Secretariat and these will be added to the Antarctic catalogue
next year and compared to photos from other areas. A paper
was received on pygmy blue whales of Western Australia,
along with three papers on Chilean blue whales. Two papers
contained abundance estimates but did not provide sufficient
details for their acceptability for use in assessments to be
determined. Guidelines will be clarified during the coming
year with respect to the level of information that needs to
be provided by scientists when they provide new abundance
estimates.
The Committee also received six papers related to the
Antarctic Blue Whale Project that is part of the Southern
Ocean Research Partnership (SORP) project. The primary
aim of the Antarctic Blue Whale Project is to estimate
the circumpolar abundance of Antarctic blue whales
using photographic mark-recapture methods. One paper
summarised the results of two voyages already conducted.
Four papers investigated various aspects of background
research and the most effective way to carry out markrecapture abundance methods. The last paper synthesised
these ideas and presented a proposal for future cruises. Given
the enormous area to cover and the required level of effort
needed to obtain precise circumpolar abundance estimates,
it may take up to 10 years to collect sufficient markrecapture data, even when using passive acoustic techniques
to help find blue whales to photograph. For this reason, the
originally suggested Year of the Blue Whale programme
was agreed to be infeasible. The Committee welcomed this
work, recognised the importance of the research and agreed
that a longer-term time line is more appropriate.
In addition to this series of papers, the Committee also
received a paper describing plans for the South African Blue
Whale project which is to combine acoustic technology with
traditional line transect sighting and mark-recapture surveys
methods in waters off South Africa and in the Antarctic.
Another paper was received on the genetics of Antarctic
blue whales which requested use of some of the IWC genetic
samples. The Committee provided some comments that
might improve these plans and endorsed all of the proposed
projects.
Chile noted the importance of the blue whale as an
emblematic species and noted that the population off
the Chilean coast was very likely to be a different subspecies which it continued to study with the assistance of
the Chilean Navy. Regarding the other populations of blue
whales in the Southern Hemisphere, Chile highlighted
its work to contribute to the international collaborative
effort to compile the photo-identification catalogue in the
expectation of being able to ascertain further information on
the currently unknown breeding grounds and the migratory
routes which connect them to the known feeding areas.
Chile also recorded its support for and contribution to blue
whale work being undertaken through the Southern Ocean
Research Programme (SORP).
6.4 Western North Pacific gray whales

One of the components of the draft western North Pacific
gray whale conservation management plan (see Item 9
below) agreed by IUCN and the IWC was a telemetry study
to investigate their migration routes and breeding grounds.
To accomplish this, an international and collaborative study
was developed under the auspices of the IWC, beginning
in 2010 and continuing in 2011. Several tags have been
attached to gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia, a
primary feeding ground as well as being the site of oil
and gas activities. It was generally expected that animals
feeding off Sakhalin Island migrated past Japan and Korea
to breeding areas somewhere off China. In fact, the tagged
animals travelled to the west coast of America. The animal
with the longest lasting tag moved down the coast to Mexico
and then returned to the Sakhalin Island feeding ground.
The tagging results have identified the need for a major reevaluation of the stock structure of gray whales in the North
Pacific. For example, as part of the IWC programme agreed
last year, photo-id matches from these areas have confirmed
that such movements from Sakhalin to the west are not
isolated events; 14 whales photographed off Sakhalin Island
have been matched to animals from Mexico (the total
number feeding off Sakhalin Island is around 140 animals).
The Committee received a paper summarising past and
current records of gray whales off the coasts of Japan, China
and Korea. Recent records have been rare and the last known
sighting off Korea was in 1977. The authors suggested that
the portion of western gray whales that used to migrate past
Korea might either have abandoned that route or may be
extinct.
The new information suggests that the animals that feed
off Sakhalin comprise animals from both the eastern and
western populations and the Committee is giving priority
to obtaining more information to understand stock structure
in the North Pacific and to investigating any conservation
implications.
There are plans for more tagging, in particular on gray
whales off Kamchatka, Russia, off Barrow and St Lawrence
Island, Alaska, and on PCFG (Pacific Coast Feeding Group)
gray whales off Oregon and California (see Item 7 below).
Photographs and biopsies will also be collected. The
tagging results will greatly assist the understanding of stock
structure and also provide more local information, such as
the distribution, movements and feeding areas as related to
present and future oil and gas activities.
The Committee welcomed all of the information on this
critically endangered population and the broader question of
stock structure, commended the international collaboration
thus far and recommended its continuation.
In terms of conservation advice, the Committee
acknowledged the important work of the IUCN Western
Gray Whale Advisory Panel and reiterated its support for the
Panel. Further, the Committee recommended that appropriate
monitoring and mitigation plans be implemented for all oil
and gas activities that occur in the range of the western gray
whales, especially around Sakhalin. The Committee again
recognised that the problem of net entrapment of western
gray whales is range-wide. In this context it welcomed
Japans actions to reduce mortality.
The Russian Federation noted that there was no agreement
within the Scientific Committee regarding the existence of
[2013].
13
separate gray whale populations, and recalled the sightings

of gray whales which occured in the North Atlantic off Spain
and Israel two years ago, and off Franz Josef Land last year.
This may even mean that gray whales were returning to
the North Atlantic after 400 years of absence. Nonetheless,
the Russian Federation recorded its support for protecting
the western North Pacific gray whales and their habitat. It
noted the collaborative research work undertaken with the
oil companies involved in the development around Sakhalin
Island, and also reported that construction of the third oil
and gas platform has passed the necessary Environmental
Impact Assessment. The Russian Federation said it would
continue to work collaboratively with NGOs as well as
Oregon University and scientists from other organisations
to study the gray whales and would report the results to the
IWCs Scientific Committee. Monaco noted that the work
on western North Pacific gray whales was an excellent
illustration of international collaboration on what was
considered a vulnerable population. It was concerned about
the upcoming oil and gas developments off Sakhalin, and
wished the the Russian Federation every success in applying
the vital environmental assessments and ensuring that the
developments were mitigated as much as possible.
Mexico highlighted the establishment of the first whale
sanctuary in Baja California as one of the reasons for the
recovery of the northeastern Pacific gray whales, and
suggested that following this example of recovery it would be
appropriate to carry out a survey of the whole Pacific through
the IWC to contribute to the Conservation Management
Plan developed through the IUCNs Western Gray Whale
Advisory Panel. Mexico thanked Japan for its efforts to
reduce entanglement events, and recorded its concerns with
plans to establish a third oil and gas exploration platform
near the feeding areas for this population.
Korea said that it had designated this species as a natural
monument in order to help achieve its protection and indicated
that it would continue to undertake sightings surveys for this
species even though it had not been seen in Korean waters
since 1977. The United Kingdom supported the Scientific
Committees recommendations that appropriate monitoring
and mitigation plans should be implemented for all oil and
gas activities that occur throughout the range of western gray
whales, especially if another platform was to be installed off
Sakhalin Island. It welcomed all efforts to protect western
gray whales and encouraged range states, energy companies
and their lenders to engage with the IUCNs Western Gray
Whale Advisory Panel. It requested that both the Panel and
the IWC Scientific Committee should continue to look at
ways to best protect the population.
6.5 Southern Hemisphere right whales
The Committees work focused on the report of a Workshop9
held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in September 2011
that focused on the status of Southern Hemisphere right
whales. The Committee endorsed the Workshops detailed
recommendations and four of the more general ones are
highlighted below.
(1) The annual long time-series of data collection projects
should be continued. These projects provide important
[2013].
9
For a full account see SC/64/Rep5, published in J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
(Suppl.) 14 [2013].
8
14
information such as calving intervals, abundance

estimates, and provide photo-ids, genetic samples and
tag data which can be used to define stock structure,
animal movements and estimate rates of recovery.
(2) All countries should report incidents of ship strikes and
entanglements in the annual Progress Reports submitted
to the IWC.
(3) The joint Argentina/Brazil right whale assessment should
be completed intersessionally, which will provide rates
of increase for the time period 2000 to 2010.
(4) Draft Conservation Management Plans should take
into account the recommendations made during this
workshop and the IWC Workshop on the Southern
Right Whale Die-off that took place in 201010.
Once (3) is complete then the Committee can finalise its
evaluation of status.
The Committee briefly examined the scientific content
of the draft Conservation Management Plans for southwest
Atlantic southern right whales and for southeast Pacific
southern right whales and agreed that these draft plans did
account for the recommendations suggested during the two
Workshops mentioned under (4) above. These plans were
discussed more fully by the Conservation Committee (see
Item 9 below).
6.5.2 Commission discussion and action arising
Argentina expressed its gratitude to the Scientific Committee
for the work undertaken so far and looked forward to
obtaining an estimate of the size of the Argentina/Brazil
right whale population next year. It updated the Commission
on a meeting which had taken place in May 2012 in the
Province of Chubut to develop final solutions to the problem
of gulls attacking right whales. Argentina also highlighted
the health programme being undertaken in the waters around
the Pennsula Valdz area that was investigating stranded
and dead animals, especially those less than one year old,
and said that it expected to be able to submit more findings
from these studies to the IWC in the future.
Chile thanked Argentina for hosting the right whale
assessment Workshop, and drew attention to the right whale
population off the coast of Chile and Peru that had been
classified as critically endangered with fewer than 50 mature
animals. It reported that it had introduced regulations which
permitted whalewatching to take place only from the shore,
rather than from boats, which was necessary because of
the very small population size. It also highlighted the need
to increase the records of sightings, photo-id and genetic
studies in line with the recommendations of the assessment
Workshop so as to gain more information regarding the
population.
6.6 North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales and
small stocks of bowhead whales
The Committee has regularly expressed concern over these
very small stocks and received a number of reports this year.
The North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium reported
that according to their photo catalogue there were 490 North
Atlantic right whales in 2010, five documented deaths and
11 new documented entanglements.
For a full account see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 12: 367-98
[2011].
11
[2013].
10
In the North Pacific, Japan reported that in February 2011,

a right whale was found dead in a setnet off Oita prefecture.
A skin sample was sent to the Institute of Cetacean Research
(ICR), where DNA was extracted and it was confirmed the
animal was a right whale. Unfortunately, the sample was
lost during the March 2011 tsunami. The Committee also
welcomed the report of a western North Pacific right whale
sighting survey conducted in May 2011 where a total of 20
individuals was detected, of which 19 were photographed
and 14 biopsied.
With respect to bowhead whales, there was a year-round
acoustic study during September 2008 to September 2009
off Spitzbergen, which is an old right whale whaling ground.
The calls of the Spitzbergen stock of bowhead whales were
recorded every day during November-February, with the
highest calling rate during September-May.
The Committee thanked the authors for these reports
and continued to reiterate its grave concern over these small
stocks and encouraged continued or expanded research on
these small populations.
The Commission noted this part of the Scientific Committees
report and endorsed any recommendations.
6.7 North Pacific research cruises
The primary focus was the international collaborative
programme developed for the North Pacific under the
auspices of the IWC which has been called IWC-POWER
(Pacific Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research).
The concept of a long-term programme was introduced
two years ago. It was stressed that these cruises should be
part of a well-designed medium-to-long-term programme,
rather than a series of ad hoc cruises. The primary objective
is to contribute information on abundance and trends in
abundance of large whales and try to identify the causes of
any trends that do occur. An important component of this
programme in addition to the sightings surveys involves the
use of photographs and biopsy samples from a variety of
species. The short-term objective is to complete an initial
5-year survey of the eastern North Pacific to facilitate
choice of appropriate survey blocks and strata for a longterm monitoring plan. It is also planned to undertake more
specific power analyses of the effort required to detect trends
in abundance, should trends occur. The results from these
surveys are important because many of these populations
have not been assessed for decades.
The 2nd annual IWC-POWER survey was successfully
conducted from 11 July to 8 September 2011 in the eastern
North Pacific (north of 40N, south of the Alaskan Peninsula,
between 170W and 150W) using a Japanese research
vessel. The 3rd IWC-POWER survey will leave Japan on 13
July 2012 and will take place north of 40N to the US coast
and between 140W and 135W. The Committee approved
preliminary plans for a 4th cruise to occur in summer 2012
from 160-135W, and between 30-40N; details will be
finalised at a workshop to be held in Tokyo in October 2012.
The Committee endorses the reports from all of these
surveys and looked forward to receiving more detailed reports
and results. It was extremely grateful to Japan for providing
a vessel for these cruises, recognising that providing a
dedicated vessel is a major donation to the Committees
work. Data from the first three years of the IWC-POWER
[2013].
12
cruises will be invaluable in the forthcoming in-depth

assessment of sei whales. The Committee encouraged other
range states to contribute to and collaborate with the IWCPOWER programme and thanked the USA and the Republic
of Korea for their assistance with the cruises undertaken so
far and the future planned surveys.
In addition to these IWC-directed surveys, the Committee
was informed that three systematic dedicated cetacean
sighting surveys were conducted by Japan in summer 2011
and that a similar set is planned for summer 2012. The
objectives are to examine the distribution and abundance of
large whales in the western North Pacific following IWC
requirements and guidelines. Biopsy sampling and photoidentification data will also be collected on an opportunistic
basis.
Japan stated the importance of undertaking the research
cruises and promised to co-operate in future surveys. It
highlighted the tentative estimate of 6,587 sei whales for
the eastern North Pacific13 that had been obtained from the
2011 IWC-POWER cruise and noted that a similar survey
would take place in the summer of 2012. It acknowledged
the support of the USA in allowing the survey vessel to enter
American waters and the support provided by Korea and the
IWC Secretariat.
7. ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee met
on the 27 June 2012 under the Chairmanship of Herman
Oosthuizen (South Africa). It was attended by delegates
from 29 Contracting Governments. The Chair of the
Scientific Committees Standing Working Group (SWG) on
the Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management
Procedure reported on the Scientific Committees work and
discussions. The full report of the ASW Sub-committee is
available at Annex E.
7.1 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management
Procedure
7.1.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Subcommittee
7.1.1.1 Continuation of work on developing SLAs for

the Greenlandic hunts
The Scientific Committee had developed and the Commission

endorsed an interim safe approach to setting catch limits
for the Greenland hunts in 2008, noting that this should be
considered valid for up to two quota blocks. The target is
for the Committee to have developed agreed and validated
Strike Limit Algorithms (SLAs) by species by the 2018
Commission Meeting. The interim safe approach uses an
SLA that has been simulation tested in the normal manner but
not for as full a range of scenarios as a formal long-term SLA.
For a number of reasons, primarily related to stock
structure issues, development of SLAs for Greenland
aboriginal hunts for common minke and fin whales will be
more complex than previous Implementations for stocks
subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling. While noting
Greenlands desire for flexibility amongst species in meeting
its subsistence needs, the Scientific Committee will first
develop SLAs for individual species before considering
whether and how to address multi-species considerations.
13
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 10.9 [2013].
15
The Scientific Committee received a brief report from

Greenland related to the recommendations in IWC/62/9 to
develop conversion factors from tonnes of edible products
to numbers of whales by species. The Committee made
recommendations for improved reporting next year.
A paper (IWC/64/ASW10) was presented by Greenland
to the Commissions Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Subcommittee. Its current need statement and request (see Item
7.5.2) used the conversion factors per animal included in
IWC/62/9. In discussion, several countries thanked Denmark/
Greenland for presenting this more detailed updated progress
report. Others reiterated the Scientific Committees concerns
and looked forward to the full progress report that Denmark/
Greenland will be submitting next year.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
endorsed the report of the Scientific Committee and its
recommendations.
7.1.1.2 Implementation Review of eastern North
Pacific gray whales with emphasis on PCFG
At the 2010 Annual Meeting it was agreed that the

information on stock structure and proposed hunting by the
Makah Tribe warranted the development of trials as part of
an immediate new Implementation Review with a primary
focus on the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) that was
in essence to be treated as a separate management stock
from the large eastern North Pacific population from which
the Chukotkan hunt was taken. After work by the Committee
at two Annual Meetings and two intersessional Workshops,
the Committee completed this task this year.
Based on the Commissions objectives for aboriginal
subsistence whaling, the Scientific Committee explored the
conservation performance of 11 variants of a management
plan proposed by the Makah Tribe to reduce the likelihood
that a PCFG whale might be taken in the hunt. The
Committee concluded that:
(1) SLA variant 2 performed acceptably and met the
Commissions conservation objectives; and
(2) SLA variant 1 performed acceptably provided that it is
accompanied by a photo-identification programme to
monitor the relative probability of harvesting PCFG
whales in the Makah U&A, and the results are presented
to the Scientific Committee for evaluation each year.
However, the Scientific Committee noted that the SLA
variants tested did not correspond exactly to the management
plan proposed by the Makah Tribe to the IWC. It agreed to
test such a variant intersessionally and examine the results at
the next Annual Meeting.
In addition, last year14 the Scientific Committee had
stressed that new information on movements of gray whales
highlighted the importance of further clarification of the
stock structure of North Pacific gray whales. In particular,
the matches of animals from the Sakhalin feeding grounds
with animals seen in the PCFG area and other areas along
the west coast emphasised the need for efforts to estimate
the probability of a western gray whale being taken in
aboriginal hunts for Pacific gray whales (noting that this
did not require incorporation of western gray whales into
the Implementation Review). It again strongly endorsed
the collaborative stock structure research programme (see
Item 6.4 above), noting that the results of the research may
require further trials for future SLA testing; this would be a
matter for consideration at the next Implementation Review,
if not before.
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 13: 16 [2012].
14
16
The Scientific Committee will continue to monitor the

situation and was willing to respond to any guidance or
requests for further information from the Commission.
recommendations.
There were no discussions under this item.
7.2 Aboriginal Whaling Scheme
An integral part of the AWMP process within the Scientific
Committee is the undertaking of regular or special
Implementation Reviews. The Scientific Committee developed and adopted guidelines for these this year which
cover the following issues:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
objectives;
timing of regular and special Implementation Reviews;
outcomes;
Data Availability; and
computer programmes.
In 2002, the Scientific Committee had recommended that

the Commission adopt the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Scheme. This covered a number of practical issues such as
survey intervals, carryover and guidelines for surveys. The
Committee has stated in the past that the AWS provisions
constitute an important and necessary component of safe
management under AWMP SLAs and it reaffirmed this view
this year, noting that discussions within the Commission of
some aspects such as the grace period are not yet complete.
The Commissions Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee noted the report of the Scientific Committee.
7.3 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Working Group
(ASWWG)
In 2011, the Commission endorsed a recommendation in
document IWC/63/12rev to form an Adhoc Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling Working Group (ASWWG). The
purpose of the group was to identify and consider unresolved
ASW issues, including inter alia those identified in the 2011
report of the ASW Sub-committee.
The ASWWG reported a series of five short-term recommendations and these were subsequently endorsed by the
ASW Sub-committee (while noting the reservations of one
member of the ASWWG). One of the recommendations was
to propose the creation of a voluntary fund at IWC/65, and this
was referred to the Finance and Administration Committee.
See Item 25.3.3 for the report of F&A discussions.
7.4 Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
7.4.1 Report of the ASW Sub-committee
Setting of catch limits for an even number of years
At IWC/64 the Commission considered a change from

annual to biennial meetings. This raised the issue as to
whether there were any scientific implications for the
Commission moving to setting block quotas for an even
number of years rather than the present five-year intervals.
This was examined by the Scientific Committee. It agreed
that there are no scientific reasons for the Commission not
to set catch limits for blocks of even numbers of years up

to eight years for B-C-B bowhead and eastern gray whale
stocks. Given the interim safe approach, the Committee also
agreed that there are no scientific reasons why the next quota
block for the Greenland hunts could not be for a six-year
period, noting that the long-term SLAs will be available for
implementation for the following block quota.
7.4.1.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (B-C-B) Seas stock of
bowhead whales (annual review)
A total of 51 bowhead whales were struck in 2011 resulting

in 38 animals landed. No bowhead whales were reported
struck and lost at Chukotka. The Scientific Committee
agreed that the Bowhead SLA continued to be the most
appropriate way for the Committee to provide management
advice for the B-C-B population of bowhead whales and that
the present strike and catch limits are acceptable.
The need statement for B-C-B bowhead whales by the
USA is given as IWC/64/ASW3 (summarised in Annex E,
Appendix 4) and for the Chukotkan hunt is given in IWC/64/
ASW6 (summarised in Annex E, Appendix 5).
recommendations. It also accepted the need statements
provided by the USA and the Russian Federation.
Commission discussions and action arising
There were no discussions relating to the Annual Review.

Discussions regarding future catch limits are reported at
Item 7.5.1.
7.4.1.2 North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales15
The Russian Federation reported that a total of 128 gray

whales were struck in Chukotka, Russia in 2011; two were
lost and 126 were landed. Of the landed whales, two were
stinky and not used for human consumption. In addition
to the Implementation Review with the focus on PCFG gray
whales, the Committee reviewed a wide range of excellent
papers on this stock including papers from Mexico, the
USA and the Russian Federation. A number of research
recommendations were made but no information was
presented that warranted any re-evaluation of the gray whale
SLA.
The Scientific Committee therefore agreed that the
Gray Whale SLA remains the appropriate tool to provide
management advice for eastern North Pacific gray whales
apart from the consideration of the PCFG and the Makah
hunt (for which see the discussion above under Item 7.1.1.2).
It reiterated that the current strike limits will not harm the
stock.
The need statement for the eastern gray whale hunt off
Chukotka was document IWC/64/ASW6 (summarised in
Annex E, Appendix 5) while the need statement for the
Makah hunt was IWC/64/ASW4 (summarised in Annex E,
Appendix 6).
recommendations. It also accepted the need statements
provided by the USA and the Russian Federation.
Austria asked the USA to clarify the domestic situation, and

especially the pending law suits regarding the Makah hunt.
The USA responded that the Makah Tribe of Washington
State must satisfy domestic legal requirements as a prerequisite to conducting an ASW hunt, and that the process
See also Item 7.1.1.2 on the Implementation Review for gray whales.
15
to satisfy these requirements was underway. The USA

also reported that its National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration had recently indicated its intention to prepare
a new environmental impact statement for the proposed
Makah hunt of gray whales. The USA confirmed that, as in
2007, its current proposal to update catch limits was subject
to domestic legal requirements including the evaluation of
the environmental impact assessment.
Discussions regarding future catch limits are reported at
Item 7.5.1.
7.4.1.3 common minke whale stocks off greenland
Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Subcommittee
The Committee re-emphasised the importance of collecting

genetic samples from these whales, particularly in the light
of a proposed joint AWMP/RMP workshop. The Scientific
Committees management advice covered two hunts: that
off West Greenland and that off East Greenland.
In the 2011 season 174 minke whales were landed in
West Greenland and six were struck and lost. Of the landed
whales, there were 133 females, 39 males, and two whales
of unreported sex. Genetic samples were obtained from 90
of these whales. Based on a negatively biased estimate of
abundance of 17,307 (95% CI 7,628-39,270) and application
of the agreed interim approach, the Committee repeated its
advice of last year that an annual strike limit of 178 will not
harm the stock.
For East Greenland, in the 2011 season, nine common
minke whales (all females) were landed and one was struck
and lost. The Committee noted that the strike limit of 12
represented a very small proportion of the Central stock
of common minke whales which numbers around 40,000
animals. The Committee repeated its advice of last year that
the present strike limit will not harm the stock.
recommendations.
Given the multi-species nature of the Greenland hunts,
the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee agreed
that the question of need should be considered for all hunts
simultaneously.
There were no discussions under this item. Consideration of

future catch limits can be found at Item 7.5.2.
17
7.4.1.5 west greenland stock of bowhead whales

Discussion within the Scientific Committee in recent years

has focused on stock structure and associated abundance
estimates. The present working hypothesis is that bowhead
whales in eastern Canada-West Greenland comprise a single
stock. The alternative hypothesis assumes two stocks: one
in Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin and another in Baffin Bay-Davis
Strait. The Scientific Committee welcomed a number of
papers related to this stock.
In 2011, one female bowhead whale was landed in
West Greenland and none were struck and lost. Two
bowhead whales were found dead in West Greenland in
2011, entangled in fishing gear for crabs. During 2011,
three bowhead whales were taken in Canada. More detailed
information (e.g. sex, size) was made available by Canada
to the Secretariat. The Scientific Committee was pleased to
receive this information including catch as well as struck
and lost data. It requested that in the future Canada also
provided information on any strandings, entanglements and
ship strikes of bowhead whales.
The agreed abundance estimate for eastern Canada-West
Greenland is 6,344 (95% CI: 3,119-12,906) for 2002. The
most recent agreed estimate for the spring aggregation in the
West Greenland area is 1,747 (95% CI: 966-2,528) for 2010.
Using the agreed interim approach, the Scientific Committee
repeated its advice that an annual strike limit of two bowhead
whales will not harm the stock. Should Canadian catches
continue at a similar level as in recent years, this would not
change the Committees advice with respect to the strike
limits agreed for West Greenland.
recommendations.
simultaneously.

7.4.1.6 Humpback whales off west Greenland
7.4.1.4 West greenland stock of fin whales

A total of five fin whales (all females) were landed in West

Greenland during 2011 and none were struck and lost,. No
genetic samples were obtained in 2011 and the Committee
re-emphasised the importance of collecting genetic samples
from these whales in the light of the proposed work to
develop a long-term SLA for this stock. Based on the agreed
2007 estimate of abundance for fin whales (4,539 95% CI
1,897-10,114), and using the agreed interim approach, the
Scientific Committee repeated its advice that an annual
strike limit of 19 whales will not harm the stock.
recommendations.
simultaneously.
A total of eight humpback whales comprising three males and

five females were landed in West Greenland during 2011 and
none were struck and lost. Genetic samples were obtained
from three of these whales. The Scientific Committee reemphasised the importance of collecting genetic samples
and photographs of the flukes from these whales, particularly
with respect to the YoNAH and MoNAH initiatives.
The agreed estimate of abundance for humpback whales
off West Greenland is 3,039 (CV 0.4) with an annual rate of
increase of about 9%. Using the agreed interim approach,
the Scientific Committee repeated its advice that an annual
strike limit of 10 whales will not harm the stock.
recommendations.
simultaneously.


18
7.4.1.7 Consideration of need and catch limits for

the Greenlandic hunts
The need statement for the Greenlandic hunts was given

as IWC/64/ASW7 and IWC/64/ASW8 and summarised
in Annex E, Appendix 7. Denmark/Greenland noted that
its request was consistent with Scientific Committee
management advice and thus provided no threats to any
of the stocks. It stated that its proposed catch limits for
bowhead whales and for common minke whales off West
and East Greenland were unchanged, although modified for
a six-year period. The proposed annual catch for humpback
whales was for 10 animals, an increase of one from the
current quota while that for fin whales is for 19, an increase
of three from the current quota. They stated that their request
was consistent with the multi-species need of 670 tonnes of
edible products for West Greenland and 12 common minke
whales for East Greenland.
There was considerable discussion regarding the need
statement by Greenland and there was no consensus over this
issue within the Sub-committee. Topics discussed included
conversion factors, availability of whale meat in restaurants,
political practicalities and human health. The Chair of the
ASW Sub-committee had urged all countries to use the
time between the close of the meeting and the Plenary to
engage in further discussions in order to improve mutual
understanding of positions and to try to reach consensus.
There were no discussions relating to the report of the ASW

Sub-committee. Discussions regarding future catch limits
are reported at Item 7.5.2.
7.4.1.8 North Atlantic humpback whales off St
Vincent and The Grenadines
The Scientific Committee made recommendations for the

collection of future genetic and photo-id data. It has agreed
that the animals found off St Vincent and The Grenadines
are part of the large West Indies breeding stock (numbering
around 11,600 animals in 2003) and it repeated its advice of
last year that this block catch limit will not harm the stock.
The need statement for the Bequian hunt was given as
IWC/64/ASW11 (summarised in Annex E, Appendix 8). St
Vincent and The Grenadines had been unable to attend the
meeting last year and provided additional information on
several aspects of the hunt. The strike/catch limit requests
from St Vincent and The Grenadines is at the same level as
before, although scaled to a six-year block.
A number of comments were made on the provision
of data and the need statement. One country stated that it
believed that the proposed quota was excessive.
recommendations.
St Vincent and The Grenadines confirmed that samples

were collected from one humpback whale in 2001 and
two humpback whales in 2002 and sent to Japan for
genetic analysis. Samples were also sent to Dr Palsbll
who compared the genetic data of the St Vincent and The
Grenadines samples with the information on North Atlantic
humpback whales held in his own database. The results
indicated that there was no DNA match between the St
Vincent and The Grenadines samples and those already held
on the database. Samples were also collected in 2003, 2004
and 2006 but were not sent for analysis because of problems
encountered with processing of CITES permits which

affected the preservation of the samples, and hence those
samples were discarded without analysis. St Vincent and
The Grenadines confirmed that following discussions with
the USA they had rectified this problem and that samples
from this years humpback whale take were now with a
laboratory in the USA. Photographs were also sent to the
North Atlantic Humpback Whale Catalogue in 2003, 2004
and 2006 and to the Secretariat in 2012.
Argentina requested a further clarification of the number
of individuals caught or struck and lost through the St
Vincent and The Grenadines hunt. Specifically, Argentina
noted the report of one individual caught on 14 April
2012, and the reference in Annex E of another individual
caught on 11 April 2012 and asked if these were the same
whale. Argentina also noted reference to a struck and lost
individual on 22 March 2012 in Annex E. St Vincent and
The Grenadines responded that at Annual Meetings they
reported catch and strike information for the previous season,
however its absence from the 2011 meeting necessitated the
transmission of information for the 2012 and 2011 seasons
to the Secretariat. It also confirmed that it had reported on
one whale taken in 2012 which was verified, photographed
and sampled. Given the 2012 season was nearly over St
Vincent and The Grenadines would be interviewing crews
to verify the number of struck and lost animals and would
report findings next year to the Commission.
The UK welcomed the submission of biological
samples, photographs and other data from the hunts that
had been requested by the Scientific Committee, as well as
the information needed by the Commission and working
groups. It encouraged timely provision of such information
in the future, and requested a commitment to supply data to
and participate fully in the Whale Killing Methods Working
Group and workshops to improving the welfare of hunted
whales, a transition to more humane weapons, reduced times
to death and reduced struck and lost rates.
7.4.1.9 Statement from the ASW countries
The Chair of the ASW Working Group reported that the

working group had received a statement made on behalf
of the ASW countries which agreed that ASW hunts are
important for food security and reaffirmed the four major
points affecting each aboriginal hunt (agreed at IWC/58)
which were that: (1) subsistence hunting is for food to meet
cultural and nutritional needs; (2) the safety of his crew is
a whaling captains most important responsibility; (3) with
safety assured, achieving a humane death for the whale is
the highest priority; and (4) efforts to modernise whaling
equipment and practices can only be made within the context
of each communities economic resources and the need to
preserve the continuity of hunting traditions.
7.4.1.10 Commission discussion and action arising
Australia reiterated its previous concern over the continued

use of adhoc advice for populations for which adequate
scientific information was not yet available for full SLA
calculations. It noted that this year the Scientific Committee
did not give advice on the possible extension of the duration
of the quota for St Vincent and The Grenadines, and said
that it would not ordinarily wish to see the duration of
this quota extended but also recognised the extenuating
circumstances arising from a possible move to biennial
meetings. It emphasised that further strike limits should
not be set beyond the usual period unless it was done using
formal and agreed SLAs under the Aboriginal Whaling
Management Procedure. Korea requested a justification for
the possible extension of the catch limit period from five

years to six years, and suggested that a four year block quota
period should also be considered, and Argentina suggested
that it may not be advisable to move away from the five year
block quota period. Chile also requested clarification on the
proposed move to biennial meetings so as to support the
decision making process on length of ASW catch limits.
Argentina referred to the discussions within the ASW
Working Group on the standardisation of catch limits
in terms of number of whales or tons of whale meat and
expressed its view that catch reports should be expressed in
terms of numbers of whales because the discarding of meat,
blubber and internal organs introduced certain difficulties.
Denmark responded that the West Greenland hunt was a
multi-species hunt and that the human needs were 670 tons
of whale meat, as it had been for many previous years, and
that this figure could be satisfied by various combinations of
the species.
Argentina expressed concern in relation to the Greenland
catches where it considered there was a commercial
component which was higher than would be allowed under
the ASW definition, and in relation to the St Vincent and
The Grenadines catches where it agreed with the statements
of the Dominican Republic that there were no longer any
indigenous Caribbean peoples and that there was a confusion
between a family tradition and a cultural tradition. Mexico
and Brazil supported Argentinas remarks and Brazil
suggested that these two hunts be examined individually and
on their own merit. Denmark responded that the Greenland
hunt fulfilled all criteria for aboriginal subsistence whaling
as described in document IWC/64/ASW7. St Vincent and
The Grenadines responded that they had been in receipt of
an aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for 25 years and that
the aboriginal nature of the hunt had been accepted in the
previous periods. Monaco, supported by Mexico, recognised
that the hunt had been granted for 25 years, but said that the
aboriginal nature of the hunt had never been convincingly
demonstrated during this period. It also said that a tradition
which could only be traced back to 1875 does not qualify as
aboriginal, and that the St Vincent and The Grenadines hunt
was an anomaly within the overall structure and regime of
ASW.
Indias view was that the IWC should work to reduce
the aboriginal dependence upon whales in a phased manner,
and that this should be achieved by identifying those
aboriginal peoples dependent on whaling and by seeking
to establish alternate socio-economic conditions including
whalewatching and eco-tourism. India also stated its
appreciation for the work of the Scientific Committee in
advising on the proposed catch limits. The Russian Federation
asked if India had taken account of the geography, harsh
climate and high latitude where the Inuit communities were
living and remarked that it is obvious there are no resources
other than those provided by nature and wildlife, and also that
the aboriginal people are relying in their diet upon marine
mammals. The Russian Federation recalled that over the last
12 months it had joined a diplomatic conversation with the
Indian Government and had received a statement that the
Government of India would further research the situation. It
hoped this bilateral conversation would continue. St Vincent
and The Grenadines found the statement by India regrettable
since the IWC had established parameters on aboriginal
subsistence whaling over many years in recognition of
the needs of people who required to take whales for their
existence and survival. India clarified that it was not opposed
to subsistence whaling where based upon an assessment of
19
dietary and cultural requirements, but that it was opposed to

commercial subsistence whaling. It re-stated that subsistence
whaling may be phased out over a period of time depending
on the changing structure of economic conditions through
alternate livelihood opportunities.
Guinea commended the recommendations of the
Scientific Committee and noted that the controlled use
would not harm the identified stocks. Belgium stated that
the Scientific Committees report and recommendations
provided the starting point for the ASW discussion, rather
than the end point. It noted that many socio-economic
implications must be taken into account when deciding
whether to agree quota extensions or not.
The Commission noted the report of the ASW Subcommittee and endorsed its recommendations.
7.5 Proposals for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch
limits
7.5.1 Proposed catch limits for bowhead, gray and
humpback whales
The USA introduced document IWC/64/10 which was a
proposed Schedule amendment submitted on behalf of the
Russian Federation, St Vincent and The Grenadines and the
USA to set an ASW quota for these countries for the six
year period 2013-18 at the same annual level as had taken
place in the preceding five year period 2008-12. The USA
explained that the six year (rather than five year) period
was appropriate in order to fit in with the Commissions
expected move to a biennial meeting cycle, and recalled
the Scientific Committees advice that block periods of up
to eight years in length meet the conservation objectives
established by the IWC. Regarding the management regime
for the St Vincent and The Grenadines hunt, the USA
recalled the Scientific Committees advice that the proposed
catch limit using a five year block quota would not harm the
stock, and the subsequent advice from the Head of Science
that the performance results of a six year block would be
indistinguishable from a five year block. On the question of
effects of carryover, the USA highlighted the simulations
undertaken by the Scientific Committee which had shown
that the current carryover provisions of quota to subsequent
years for gray whales and bowhead whales were well
within levels consistent with the conservation objectives
established by the Commission. Finally, on the question of
the aboriginal nature of the St Vincent and The Grenadines
hunt, the USA recalled that the Commission uses definitions
of subsistence use, and at past meetings the Commission had
agreed that the harvest as practiced at St Vincent and The
Grenadines is consistent with these definitions.
The Chairman of the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling
Commission, George Noongwook, spoke on behalf of the
Alaskan villages which depended on bowhead whales. He
explained that in these villages there were few sources of
employment and limited supplies of food. Consequently,
most of the food was taken from the ocean in the form of
whales, walrus, seals and fish. He went on to explain the
seriousness with which the villages took the IWC decisions
as it deeply affected their way of life. He highlighted the
scientific conclusions which confirmed the bowhead whale
stock is healthy and able to support the hunt. He also recalled
the long-term increase in the average efficiency of the hunt
despite the deteriorating ice conditions.
Japan thanked the USA for its explanation and recalled

its view that it is important to promote the sustainable
20
use of marine resources based upon scientific findings.

Accordingly, it strongly supported the joint proposal
contained in IWC/64/10. Guinea re-iterated the Scientific
Committees advice that the proposed use would not harm
the stocks and indicated its support for the package proposal.
St Lucia, supported by Grenada and Tanzania, noted that
there was no United Nations definition of what constitutes
aboriginal but also clarified that there are full-blooded
indigenous peoples living in the eastern Caribbean states.
It re-iterated the Scientific Committees advice that the
proposed hunts would not harm the stocks and in relation
to the issue of food security noted that the proposed hunts
were to provide food for aboriginal peoples. St Lucia
considered that a take of four animals from a total of 11,000
whales through the aboriginal hunt in St Vincent and The
Grenadines would not affect the whalewatching industry in
other parts of the Caribbean. In regards to commerciality,
St Lucia recognised the costs incurred in reducing times to
death and indicated that being able to sell at least a small
portion of the quota would be necessary to recover the costs.
St Kitts and Nevis, supported by Grenada and Tanzania,
congratulated the work undertaken through the Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling caucus and asserted the need for food
security, cultural diversity and sustainable livelihoods for
coastal and marginal peoples. It also wished to ensure that the
rights of aboriginal people are maintained and stated that the
proposal (IWC/64/10) met the Commissions and Scientific
Committees established standards. St Kitts and Nevis
encouraged the economic development of whalewatching,
but reiterated the right of St Vincent and The Grenadines to
utilise the resources of their Exclusive Economic Zone in
the way in which they see fit.
Iceland indicated its support for sustainable whaling
based on science, and noted that in Iceland in the Bay of
Faxafli both whaling and whalewatching coexisted side by
side and had done so for at least 10 years. Palau indicated its
support for the proposals in IWC/64/10 on the basis of the
Scientific Committees advice.
The Dominican Republic felt that in the Caribbean issues
relating to humpback whales were being considered from
different points of view. Twenty five years ago the Dominican
Republic had created a whale sanctuary which was visited
by around 40,000 people and generated nine million dollars
during the season. In contrast, St Vincent and The Grenadines
had entered the IWC 25 years ago, alleging an aboriginal
subsistence requirement. However they had broken many
standards in hunting for young whales or mothers, and the
Dominican Republic also highlighted that there had been no
aborigines in the Caribbean for over 300 years. For these
reasons, the Dominican Republic could support the needs of
the native populations in the USA and Russian Federation,
but could not support the joint proposal made by all three
countries. Ecuador highlighted the prosperity of its own
whalewatching activities and indicated it could not support
the St Vincent and The Grenadines proposal as it was not
aboriginal subsistence whaling and not a priority for human
survival, as it amounted to only one or two whales per year.
Instead, Ecuador asked St Vincent and The Grenadines to
withdraw its proposal and focus on non-lethal use which
would be of greater benefit to its citizens.
Mexico highlighted improvements in the state of the
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead whales and
congratulated the achievements of the Alaskan Eskimo
Whaling Commission. It stated that the Russian Federation
also complied with the requirements and the definition
of aboriginal subsistence whaling as established by the
Commission. However Mexico expressed its dislike of the

inclusion of the St Vincent and The Grenadines proposal
within the same package since this whaling was not
carried out by aboriginal peoples, and was in fact closer
to commercial whaling than to aboriginal whaling. In light
of this, Mexico offered assistance to St Vincent and The
Grenadines to support the establishment of a whalewatching
industry.
Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Peru and Brazil believed
that the specific request from St Vincent and The Grenadines
should be dealt with separately since there had been no
timely response by St Vincent and The Grenadines to the
requests arising from the Scientific Committee. These
countries also expressed their concern as to whether the
hunt was aboriginal in nature. Chile repeated its request to
resolve the question of moving to biennial meetings prior
to deciding on future ASW quotas. Costa Rica stated that
it was unable to identify a real interest by St Vincent and
The Grenadines to follow Scientific Committee requests
and collect data and submit catch return information in a
serious and systematic manner. Costa Rica also expressed
reservations regarding the aboriginal nature of the St Vincent
and The Grenadines hunt, and suggested that although whale
hunting was practiced in many countries during the 18th and
19th centuries the world had now evolved and non-lethal
uses of whales provided more effective ways of generating
an economic income.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the other European Union
member states party to the IWC to express support for the
proposed Schedule amendment. It stated that the EU and
its member states were committed to protecting the lives of
indigenous peoples including the protection of livelihoods.
It noted that in considering further proposals for ASW they
would be guided by the precautionary principle and by the
advice of the Scientific Committee and also taking into
account the work of the IWCs ASW Working Group. South
Africa, supported by Switzerland and Israel, supported
the proposal contained in IWC/64/10 and South Africa
sympathised with people who depended upon subsistence
whaling and said that while the development of alternative
livelihood programmes such as whalewatching were helpful
they could not solve all of the problems involved. Monaco
stated it would not interfere with building consensus on
IWC/64/10 but highlighted the relatively recent development
of whaling practices in St Vincent and The Grenadines and
questioned whether this was compatible with the concept
of aboriginal whaling. Monaco requested that in the future
a historical account be provided to help shed light on the
development of this particular hunt.
The Eastern Caribbean Coalition for Environmental
Awareness (ECCEA) said that never in the history of
archaeology in St Vincent and The Grenadines had there
been any findings to suggest that the aboriginal Kalinago or
Garifuna peoples killed whales, interacted with whales or ate
whale meat. The killing of humpback whales on Bequia was
a relic of European and American origin which was begun in
about 1875 by a Scottish settler, William Wallace, together
with a settler of French origin, Joseph Ollivierre. ECCEA
highlighted that the whaling was not an aboriginal activity,
it was learned from the Yankee whalers and modern day
whaling in Bequia was done by persons of mixed European
and African descent. ECCEA went on to say that the killing
of humpback whales on Bequia could not be justified on
economic or nutritional grounds as alternative sources of
protein including chicken and fish could be obtained at
cheaper prices on Bequia. It highlighted the negative impact
on the tourism industry caused by the killing of whales.

ECCEA said that the Bequia whalers had a long tradition
of hunting mothers and calves in contradiction to IWC
regulations, and that the St Vincent and The Grenadines
government had a history of non-compliance with respect to
IWC reporting obligations. It called on the IWC to withdraw
the proposal for a take of humpback whales for St Vincent
and The Grenadines.
Te Ohu Kaimoana is the body established to manage and
advocate Maori rights to fisheries in New Zealand and it said
that one of lifes great delusions is when we believe that our
way of doing things, whether religion, economy, justice and
in particular looking after the environment, is better than that
of somebody else. It saw the Commission behaving today in
the same way that the English behaved when they arrived in
New Zealand in introducing a new range of ideas, systems
and systematic gross exploitation of natural resources. Te
Ohu Kaimoana said that indigenous peoples were not gross
exploiters, and that it was ironic that countries that had
previously grossly exploited whales were now imposing
newly acquired values on cultures that continue to suffer
the effects and symptoms of colonial exploitation. It was
concerned that indigenous peoples may not be able to
maintain their rights and exercise their traditions in ways that
preserve their dignity, and reducing those groups to seeking
permission was degrading. It noted that the Commission
was already a tool for limiting indigenous tradition through
its quotas, and requested that indigenous people be allowed
to continue to practice their traditions and customary rights.
At the end of the debate the Chair asked if there was
consensus to adopt the Schedule amendments as given in
IWC/64/10. Following brief discussions, Brazil and Mexico
spoke on behalf of the South American group of countries
to report that there was consensus to adopt the Schedule
amendments as related to the USA and Russian Federation
proposed catches of bowhead whales and gray whales. But
there was no consensus agreement to accept the proposed
amendment in relation to the humpback catches of St Vincent
and The Grenadines. In response to an invitation from the
Chair, the USA clarified that the Governments of the Russian
Federation, St Vincent and The Grenadines and the USA
opposed efforts to divide the joint proposal in IWC/64/10.
It noted that the proposals were all a status quo continuation
of existing hunts, and all had been found to be consistent
with the IWCs definition of ASW on previous occasions.
Further, the Scientific Committee had reported that the hunts
were sustainable, and for these reasons these Governments
considered that it was appropriate for the Commission to
consider a joint rather than a separate proposal.
Following this explanation, the Chair recognised there
was no consensus on the joint proposal and requested the
Commission decide by vote. The outcome of the vote was
that the Schedule amendment contained in IWC/64/10 was
adopted with 48 votes for, 10 against, two abstentions and
one not participating16.
After the vote Mexico explained that it voted in favour of
the quota requested by the USA and emphasised that while
the indigenous people of Mexico do not utilise whales for
cultural or subsistence needs, Mexican national legislation
and the commitments included in international conventions
to which Mexico is a party required it to safeguard the rights
and promote the knowledge and the culture of indigenous
people. With its vote in support of the ASW quota for the
Voting records are listed in document IWC/64/Status, which is available at
http://www.iwcoffice.org/iwc64docs.
16
21
Eskimos of Alaska, Mexico recognised the important

contribution made by the Eskimo people to promote the
growth of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead
whales so that it is no longer endangered. Accordingly,
Mexico added its appreciation to the Alaskan Eskimo
Whaling Commission, the North Slope Borough, and the
Alaskan Wildlife Management Department and the Scientific
Committee for providing continued and detailed data and
records for the last 30 years. Mexico went on to explain
that it voted in favour of the request put forward by the
Russian Federation for its Eskimo communities because it is
consistent with the definition of ASW adopted by consensus
in the IWC in 2004. Furthermore the quota requested for
gray whales was the same annual rate as that for the last
five years. It supported the approval of this quota based on
the Scientific Committees recommendation, which advised
that the estimated gray whale population is of approximately
20,000 individuals and with a positive growth rate, so that
the requested quota does not affect the gray whale stock.
Regarding the quota request on behalf of St Vincent and The
Grenadines, Mexico explained that it would have opposed
this quota because while there was precedent of approval
of quotas for that country, there were persistent problems
that have been unresolved for over three decades and those
problems were related to the lack of sufficient information
on the history and continuity of this whaling activity and
how they respond to nutritional and socio-cultural needs.
This information was necessary to evaluate the declaration
of needs for humpback whales. Additionally Mexico
encouraged St Vincent and The Grenadines to provide
information and data in response to the requirements of the
Scientific Committee, especially photo-identification of the
humpback whale individuals and tissue samples for genetic
analysis.
India explained that it had abstained because of its
position that subsistence whaling should be phased out
in the due course of time because of the changing socioeconomic and cultural requirements of the communities.
Panama explained that it rejects commercial whaling and
supports the moratorium. It understood that aboriginal
subsistence whaling was the only acceptable whaling so
long as it complied with scientific advice and the creation
of need statements and that it was not used as a context for
commercial whaling. This was why it supported the request
made by the USA and Russian Federation, but its preference
would have been for the St Vincent and The Grenadines
request to have been dealt with separately. Costa Rica
clarified that it supported the USA and Russian Federation
requests, but had voted against the proposal because there
was a need to promote conservation and changing customs
for St Vincent and The Grenadines. India, Monaco, Uruguay,
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador
and Chile recognised the progress that had been made
with ASW by the USA and Russian Federation, but would
also have liked the quota request for St Vincent and The
Grenadines dealt with separately.
7.5.2 Proposed catch limits for the Greenlandic hunt
Denmark introduced document IWC/64/12 which was a
proposed Schedule amendment submitted by Denmark on
behalf of Greenland. Denmark explained that the Schedule
amendment was supported by two other documents, these
being IWC/64/ASW7 which was a white paper on the
management and utilisation of large whales in Greenland
and IWC/64/ASW8 which was a note on the Greenland need
statement.
22
Regarding the concept of needs, Denmark explained that

these were established by the Government of Greenland and
had been the same for the last 20 years, namely 670 tonnes
of whale meat on the West Greenland side. This figure was
calculated after taking into account the needs of food security
and the opportunities to use other food sources including
fish, birds, caribou, musk ox, polar bears, walrus, sheep and
imported food. The figure equated to 12-13kg of whale meat
per inhabitant per year, and Denmark stated that there was
no intention to introduce a policy defining those allowed to
eat whale meat and those not allowed to eat whale meat.
The Chairman of the Fishermen and Hunters Organisation
stated that whaling had always been an important part of
the cultural life in Greenlandic society, and that rational
utilisation of resources and social and economic well-being
is an integral part of the hunters daily situation. It said that
the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples
could be violated if a positive solution could not be reached
on the proposals contained in IWC/64/12, and also noted
that the Scientific Committee had once again agreed that
the quota request would not harm the stocks. Regarding
the concern expressed by some Contracting Parties on the
question of money, it said that today all activities involve
money, and without it there was no possibility to conduct a
proper effective fast kill of whales.
The Greenlandic Ministry for Fishing, Hunting and
Agriculture used a PowerPoint presentation to provide an
introduction to the geography and industry of Greenland
which emphasised the remote and inaccessible nature of
the territory and the reliance on natural resources including
minerals and biological resources such as fish, seals,
whales, terrestrial mammals and seabirds. Referring to the
whale hunt, Greenland showed that hunting methods had
been continually improved and data had been submitted to
IWC on killing methods. The presentation also addressed:
(1) the nature of the humpback whale resource and the
possible opportunity costs associated with tourist based
whalewatching in some parts of the area; (2) the sampling
protocols and data collection methods associated with the
utilisation of large whales in the Greenlandic hunt; and (3)
the local consumption and distribution of whale meat in
Greenland. In addition, a full description of the regulation,
control and monitoring of the Greenland hunt was provided
in Chapter 5 of IWC/64/ASW7.
Denmark/Greenland concluded its introduction by
confirming that the annual need of meat from large whales
in the Greenland hunt was 670 tonnes and this had been
estimated by the Technical Committee and the Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee in 1991. However this
level had never been met by the catch limits allocated by the
IWC. Regarding scientific advice, the Scientific Committee
had, for the first time, been able to give interim advice for
all four whale species relevant to Greenland in 2008, and
this advice was valid for two quota blocks until 2018 and the
recommendation was that a hunt of 178 minke whales, two
bowhead whales, 19 fin whales and 10 humpback whales off
West Greenland and 12 minke whales off East Greenland
would not harm the stock.
Norway, St Lucia, Japan, Iceland, St Kitts and Nevis,

St Vincent and The Grenadines, Switzerland, Russian
Federation and Antigua and Barbuda supported Denmark/
Greenlands proposal.
Norway and Iceland stated their view that they recognised
only one type of whaling, and that was sustainable whaling
irrespective of form or place. Given the clear advice from
the Scientific Committee that the quotas were sustainable

Norway and Iceland supported the proposal in IWC/64/12.
Iceland highlighted that the present quotas do not fulfil
the needs of the Greenlandic people and so it supported
the increased quota proposal compared to 2008-12 levels.
St Lucia highlighted the issue of food security and that
Greenland is unable to provide food for its people through
traditional agriculture and as such is dependent upon the
use of marine resources. It also stressed that denying the
quota request may cause additional stress on other marine
mammal resources including small cetaceans which would
be targeted to satisfy nutritional needs, and that disregarding
the substantial work and recommendations of the Scientific
Committee was to set a bad precedence. St Vincent and
The Grenadines expressed its support for the Denmark/
Greenland proposal and remarked that the sustainability of
the hunt was of key importance. It considered that the people
of Greenland should be able to determine their own use of
marine mammal resources.
Japan emphasised the Scientific Committee advice that
the proposed catches would not harm the stock and that the
need and circumstances for the hunt had been fully described.
Switzerland referred to the declaration on the rights of
indigenous peoples, and highlighted the need to maintain
institutions, cultures and traditions and the ability to engage
freely in all traditional and economic activities. The Russian
Federation referred to the traditional use of whale meat in
supporting the subsistence, economic exchange and growth
of arctic aboriginal communities. It highlighted the need
for Greenland to continue working within the frame of the
IWC, instead of outside it as two other countries (Canada
and Indonesia) already did. It suggested that the strategy of
isolating the requirements of Greenland was not in the best
interest of the IWC or the well-being of aboriginal nations.
The USA indicated its support for Denmark/Greenlands
proposal and noted the Scientific Committees conclusion
that the catch limits would not harm the populations. The
USA believed that the use of whale products by the hunters
in Greenland satisfies the definition of ASW agreed by the
IWC.
The Dominican Republic, supported by Ecuador,
highlighted its concern that humpback whales in the Atlantic
were easy to catch given their tradition of getting close to
whalewatching vessels around the Dominican Republic. It
also noted concern that only a limited amount of data on the
weights and yields of captured whales had been recorded by
Greenland and that there were only nine whaling inspectors
for 18 communities despite it being a stated priority
for Greenland. It contrasted this with the regulation of
whalewatching in Dominican Republic where 33 employees
supervised activities. It also noted other weaknesses in the
Denmark/Greenland paper including levels of pollutants
in whale meat and its unsuitability for consumption by
pregnant women or children. Brazil and Ecuador considered
that the Denmark/Greenland proposal did not meet the
definition of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling because of
its strong commercial component. Brazil also highlighted
the difficulties in developing a multi-species SLA in order
to satisfy the Commissions objectives for ASW hunts,
and requested the Scientific Committee be allowed the
necessary time to develop its full advice before adopting
the quota. Argentina referred to the concern expressed at the
Scientific Committee meeting about the insufficient level
of detail provided by Denmark/Greenland in regards to the
conversion factors used to calculate yield of meat from each
whale, and inconsistencies with the sampling efficiency and
weighing procedure. It highlighted the Scientific Committee

recommendations regarding sampling protocols and methods
for measuring the lengths of animals caught.
Australia noted the requests to move towards consensus
but stated the proposal was about the abandonment of
consensus rather than a move towards it. It recalled that
at the 2010 meeting a consensus had been arrived at with
difficultly, and a number of conditions were placed on
that consensus and undertakings made which had not
subsequently been met to the satisfaction of the Scientific
Committee. Australia noted that the Chairs Report from
IWC/62 in 2010 stated that by returning the humpback whale
to the mix of resources that Denmark/Greenland would be
able to reduce the overall number of whales taken because of
the greater yield provided by humpback whales. Therefore
during the agreement of the consensus decision Greenland
had stated that there would be an opportunity to lower the
number of whales taken, but now the Commission was being
asked to accept a Schedule amendment whereby the number
of whales taken would rise. Australia stated it could not
support the Schedule amendment as previous undertakings
must be honoured and that the Commission should not be
confronted with a new level of ambit.
New Zealand re-iterated its support for ASW where it
is consistent with the Scientific Committees findings on
sustainability, where it does not threaten the rebuilding of
endangered populations and where it meets the criteria set
by the IWC. It stated that like Australia it was not prepared
to support an increase in the quota from what was agreed
with such difficultly two years ago. India stated that the
present proposal for increasing the quota is not supported
by adequate studies on the assessment of the increased need
for meat by the aboriginal communities. It also noted NGO
reports that not all the meat was used by the aboriginal
communities and some was used by restaurants.
Chile re-iterated its concern that the quotas were proposed
for six years in the absence of agreement on a possible move
to biennial meetings and it requested a commitment to
discuss renewal in 2017 if the move to biennial meetings was
not successful. It also highlighted its concern arising from
the Scientific Committees views on the lack of information
provided and the non-rigorous nature of the way the hunt
was controlled. It also noted its concern that the selling of
meat to tourists in restaurants struck against the moratorium
on commercial whaling and as such it could not support the
proposal.
Mexico indicated its concern about commercial use
being made of quotas given the language in the Schedule
that ASW is permitted only when the meat and products are
used exclusively for local consumption and that this was
not happening. It understood that whale meat was a source
of livelihood in remote settlements but there was no need
to provide this resource for the whole population including
the 80% residing in urban areas. It also drew attention to
the absence of data on the percentage of meat being used
by local communities compared with the percentage being
sold on the free markets, and the absence of information on
protein sources from the flourishing fishing industry.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden and the UK and re-iterated their full commitment
to ASW to satisfy aboriginal needs in the wider context
of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and their
livelihoods. It explained that they were ready to consider
ASW proposals according to these principles and were
23
pleased to have supported the proposal introduced by the

USA, Russian Federation and St Vincent and The Grenadines,
but that they were unable to support the proposal described
in IWC/64/12.
Denmark/Greenland responded to the concerns raised
and stated that the commercial part of the ASW hunt had
been fully explained. It had asked hunters to buy cannons
and grenades to improve the humaneness of the hunt and
these cost 2,000 dollars apiece and were financed from the
proceeds of the hunt as sold by the citizens of Greenland.
In relation to the possible move to a biennial meeting cycle,
Denmark/Greenland stated it would adjust to whatever
decision was taken. In relation to the possible reduction
in the number of whales taken following the addition of
humpback whales to the mix in 2010, Denmark/Greenland
noted that the addition of the humpback whales had been
matched by an equal reduction in the number of fin whales.
In relation to the control of the hunt, Denmark/Greenland
stated that it had new regulations on the management of
large whales in Greenland and an executive order was also
being revised. It had strict regulations that every hunter must
apply for a license and after having caught a whale they have
to stamp the licence before distributing the whale.
Recognising that there was no agreement to adopt the
proposed Schedule amendment by consensus, the Chair
agreed to Denmarks request to decide the proposal by vote.
The outcome of the vote was 25 for, 34 against and three
abstentions, and consequently the proposed amendment was
rejected.
Following the vote, Iceland commented that it was sad
for all sustainable whaling countries to witness the result
of the decision and said that the organisation had become
extremely dysfunctional. Japan also considered that this
was a sad conclusion which deprived people living in harsh
climates of an important source of nourishment. It considered
that the proposal was backed by science, and those who had
said no to the proposal did not believe in science. Palau
remarked that the IWC had deprived Greenlanders of their
main source of protein and protected marine mammals
against human beings. It conveyed its regrets to Greenland
on behalf of the likeminded sustainable group of countries.
Tanzania remarked that the Denmark/Greenland proposal
had been based on science, and asked if members would
agree to giving Greenland a timeline to address the issues
that had been raised while allowing them to continue with
the aboriginal hunt. Switzerland recognised the rights of
indigenous people to make use of their natural resources and
make their own decisions. It was also Switzerlands wish
that the Commission work in the spirit of compromise and
that it worked towards solutions which took into account all
the opinions expressed.
St Kitts and Nevis said that coastal communities should
never be deprived of their rights to their resources. It
considered that this was a regretful day for the IWC and
asked for reflection on the consequences for the people
of Greenland. St Lucia noted that the proposed Schedule
amendment had not been for a zero quota, but instead
was for a specific quota. Given that the previous quota
was expired, it commented that what the Commission
had actually said to Denmark/Greenland was to go forth
and manage their fishery on their own. It considered that
whaling would continue despite the outcome of the vote
because the outcome effectively meant no quota advice was
given. St Vincent and The Grenadines commented that the
Commission had failed to understand the difficulties faced
by coastal peoples and said that the IWC was about whales,
24
not people. It said that the organisation was becoming more

polarised and emphasised with the people of Greenland in
their struggle for their right to food.
Mexico recognised the problems related to Greenlands
geography and culture, as well as the difficulties associated
with the different species of whales utilised in the aboriginal
hunt and the problems regarding the applicability of the
declaration of needs based on conversion factors. At
the same time, Mexico also shared the reservations and
concerns previously expressed regarding the proposed hunt
and had therefore voted against it. In this regard, Mexico
invited Denmark/Greenland to continue collaborating with
the IWC, especially in response to Scientific Committee
recommendations regarding the provision of information
and data on the amount of edible products of the fin whales,
bowhead and humpback whales, as well as to provide
information on its sampling programme and data validation
protocols. It underlined the Scientific Committees concern
on the insufficient level of data provided by Greenland, the
inconsistencies of its report, the efficiency of the sampling
regime and the extrapolation procedure and invited
Greenland to provide data regarding field protocols, sampling
strategies, analytical methodologies and information on the
sex and length of hunted animals. Mexico would maintain
a careful follow up on the evolution of this case with an
open and cooperative attitude, based on IWC principles,
objectives and criteria.
Ecuador recognised the importance of the culture and
traditions associated with ancestral peoples and noted that
its own conservation traditions are reflected in its national
legislation and external policies. Ecuador explained that it had
opposed the proposal because it had a significant commercial
component and exposed consumers to undetermined health
risks. In particular, Ecuador could not support the proposal
because it affected humpback whales which were a symbol
for all countries that had turned whalewatching into a great
industry.
New Zealand, supported by Monaco, re-iterated its support
for ASW in that it satisfied the Commissions requirements
regarding sustainability and need. It commented that the issue
of need was especially problematic for Greenland which had
access to the social and economic support structures of the
Kingdom of Denmark. New Zealand stated that its position
had been determined by the effort over the last five years by
Greenland to progressively rank up its whaling catch and to
insist that the Commission be implicit in the exercise. Five
years ago there had been no agreement and a special meeting
was required. A special attempt was then made at IWC/62 in
2010 to reach a conclusion which included being complicit
in a scenario by which Greenland had finally been able to get
what it wanted. It would have been possible for Greenland
to have rolled over the same level of quota that was agreed
only two years ago, and New Zealand thought it would have
been sensible for Greenland to have done that and wished
it had asked for it. Monaco remarked that Greenland has
the advantage to be surrounded by very rich oceanographic
waters, and Greenlanders are a major consumer of seals,
ranked second in the world just after Canada. There is a
variety of food available in their diet, including terrestrial
food because Greenland is not just covered entirely by an
ice cap, it has farms, sheep, reindeers and vegetables. It
also consumes plenty of fish. It said the issue of whale meat
being available to tourists, increasingly in a large number
of restaurants did not make the case of the Greenlanders
particularly strong. Finally, Monaco highlighted the health
risk linked to methyl mercury which is extremely high in the

northern Greenland population being 200 times above the
tolerable level advised. In conclusion, Monaco was not in a
position to support an increase in quota this year.
India said that it endorsed ASW provided that it was based
on assessment of the dietary and cultural requirements of the
aboriginal communities and that there was no commercial
use of the hunt. It explained that it did not support the
increased quota proposed in IWC/64/12 because there was
no information on the increased population of aboriginal
communities and the requirement for the increased harvest.
Denmark thanked the countries that had supported
Greenland and commented that a number of countries had
not wished to take responsibility for whaling in Greenland. It
regretted the lack of solutions and the lack of understanding
and commented that this was a serious situation given the
IWC had to work hard to survive at a time when it had not
been able to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. It
repeated that it fully supported the sustainable use of all
marine resources, and that it would now return home to
make a sensible decision as to its future course of action.
8. CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
The Conservation Committee met on 26 June 2012 and
was chaired by Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho (Mexico). Delegates
participated from 25 Contracting Governments and its
report is given in this volume as Annex F. The Conservation
Committees discussions on Conservation Management
Plans, whalewatching and whale sanctuaries and included
under Agenda Items 9, 10 and 4 respectively. Discussions on
the Committees other items are summarised below.
At the start of its meeting the Committee rose in
appreciation and applause for the life and achievements of
Alexandre de Lichtervelde who died in 2011. Alexandre had
been Commissioner for Belgium since its adherence to the
IWC in 2004. As well as being a strong advocate for the
Commissions conservation work he had founded the Ship
Strikes Working Group and had been a strong supporter of
the online database for recording ship strikes established in
2009.
8.1 Investigation of inedible stinky gray whales
The Russian Federation presented a report (IWC/64/CC10)
of a study of contamination problems in gray whales carried
out from 2005-11. In 2011, two of the 126 gray whales
landed were considered stinky. The study did not draw
conclusions on the cause but the authors commented that
the stink may be a result of slow metabolism of petroleum
hydrocarbons. In addition they found that persistent
organochlorines such as DDT were present in only low
concentrations or were non-detectable. Stinky whales
cannot be used for human or animal consumption as they are
abhorrent and cause allergies and diarrhoea. Accordingly
the Russian Federation consider them as struck and lost
rather than part of the landed quota.
The USA indicated that it was willing to assist the
Russian Federation with the experimental designs and
analysis needed to make progress with this problem. The
Committee thanked the Russian Federation for its report and
supported further work on this subject.
There were no discussions under this Item.
8.2 Ship strikes

The Scientific Committee highlighted particular concern
where ship strikes affected small populations of whales,
especially Arabian Sea humpback whales and southern right
whales off South Africa. The Committee had also discussed
the outcomes of several recent non-IWC workshops
focusing on ship strikes which had been held in London and
Cambridge.
The Committee discussed the development of the IWC
global database of incidents involving collisions between
whales and vessels. Since there had been only a few reports
entered onto the database it agreed a more pro-active
approach was required. Accordingly it had requested a data
co-ordinator position be established through the research
budget.
This year there was no report from the Ship Strikes Working
Group because of the sad loss of its Chair, Alexandre de
Lichtervelde.
The Committee highlighted that the issue of ship
strikes is important because it is essential for healthy whale
populations, for the recovery of whale populations and for
the development of Conservation Management Plans.
The Committee reviewed the work of the technical
expert (Dr David Mattila) who had been seconded to the
Secretariat to work on entanglement response and ship
strikes. Dr Mattila represented the IWC at an international
technical workshop on the criteria for determining humancaused lethal impacts to marine mammals held at Woods
Hole, USA in 2012. The findings of the workshop would be
very helpful to the IWC in finalising criteria for ship strike
impacts in the database handbook. The Committee thanked
Dr Mattila for his work and efforts to publicise the Ship
Strikes Database and thanked the USA for their assistance in
supporting Dr Matillas secondment. It also recommended
that Dr Mattila should collaborate closely with the ship strike
data co-ordinator proposed by the Scientific Committee, and
that a dedicated outreach programme should be established
to promote the existence of, and stimulate the use of the
database. Other members of the Conservation Committee
supported the need for the database co-ordinator but stressed
that this should be discussed in the context of other items
being considered by the Committee.
The Conservation Committee received reports from
countries on ship strikes which had occurred in the last
12 months and on initiatives to record and reduce ship
strike incidents. In particular the USA introduced two
new proposals which were submitted to the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2012 to amend two existing
Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) off the US west coast to
reduce the likelihood of ship strike deaths and serious injury
to blue and other large whales.
Panama Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS)
The Conservation Committee received a proposal from

the Republic of Panama for the establishment of Traffic
Separation Schemes (TSS) and prevention of vessel
collisions with whales. Around 17,000 commercial vessels
transit the Gulf of Panama each year, and this number
has nearly doubled in the last 15 years and is expected to
continue increasing as the canal is further expanded.
The Panama Maritime Authority in conjunction with
the Panama Canal Authority, the Maritime Chamber, the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Marviva
Foundation had been working for several months on
25
designing four two-way TSS, three for the Pacific and one
for the Caribbean, to be presented to the IMO for their
endorsement. Panama has recorded 13 whale casualties
in two years, mostly of humpback whales. The TSS will
be established in areas heavily used by several species of
cetaceans, especially humpback whales from both the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres which winter in Central
America and Panama (up to ~300 individuals per season from
the southern population visit the Las Perlas Archipelago).
Based on a temporal and spatial analysis of whales tagged
with satellite transmitters and AIS transmissions from
over 800 vessels it was estimated that implementation of
the scheme would reduce the potential areas of collision
between ships and whales by approximately 93%. Panama
welcomed any support or recommendations by the IWC and
individual countries.
Tenerife workshop in October 2012
Spain presented its proposal (IWC/64/CC18) to hold

an intersessional workshop on maritime transport and
biodiversity conservation. A specific aim of the project is to
study and mitigate accidents affecting marine biodiversity,
especially the impacts on cetaceans and to develop a
programme of training and communication for the maritime
transport industry.
Workshops on Disentanglement response and ship
strike reduction in the wider Caribbean
The USA summarised its joint proposal with the Dominican

Republic, France, Mexico and Panama (IWC/64/
WKM&AWI12) for the IWC to work with UNEP, CEP
and SPAW to conduct a series of three workshops on
disentanglement and ship strikes in the wider Caribbean,
focusing on an interdisciplinary ship strike workshop
planned for 2013. This item was discussed in more detail
by the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and
Associated Welfare Issues (see Annex G). The USA hoped
to expand partnership for this effort to other interested IWC
parties and the IMO. The USA recognised that this proposal
originated from Alexandre de Lichterveldes work and his
communication with UNEP and SPAW.
France, the Netherlands, Argentina and Mexico
expressed support for the workshops and the Netherlands
noted that it would be happy to participate and would look
into the possibility of making a financial contribution.
An observer from UNEP and SPAW-RAC expressed
strong support for the proposed workshops on entanglement
and ship strikes noting that the French Agoa Sanctuary for
the protection of marine mammals is also supportive and
will bring technical, logistical and financial support to the
proposal. In relation to vessel strikes, the marine mammal
action plan approved by the SPAW parties on threats to
marine mammals in the wider Caribbean region states the
following key objectives.
(1) Improve understanding. To identify high risk areas for
vessel strikes in each country.
(2) Impact assessment. To assess the magnitude of vessel
strikes in the wider Caribbean region.
(3) Impact minimisation. To stimulate on-going and initiate
new actions at the regional, national and local level to
reduce the frequency of vessel strikes.
The Conservation Committee thanked the UNEP and
SPAW-RAC representative for the offer of collaborative
engagement and the Secretariat looked forward to
formalising the agreement in the coming months.
26
STRATEGIC PLAN
The Conservation Committee endorsed a suggestion from

the Chair to develop a strategic plan for ship strikes which
might include data gathering and mitigation. Belgium
considered that a strategic plan would help to ensure the
effectiveness of the IWC Ship Strikes Database.
Appointment of Chair for the Ship Strikes Working
Group
The Conservation Committee was pleased to appoint

Belgium as Chair of the Ship Strikes Working Group and
acknowledged the work of Alexandre de Lichtervelde and
of Belgium on ship strikes in the past.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states to note its
concern regarding the increased anthropogenic threats which
faced cetaceans including bycatch, habitat degradation,
pollution, overfishing, climatic change and underwater
noise. Additionally marine debris was now recognised as a
growing threat to large whales and small cetaceans through
ingestion and entanglement. Cyprus understood that the
IWC had led efforts to investigate and mitigate the effects
of ship strikes. It stated that ship strikes were happening
regularly in all oceans and they are also connected to other
threats facing cetaceans because once a whale is entangled in
marine debris it may become more susceptible to a collision
with a ship. Also wounds inflicted by ship strikes may be
infected by a variety of pathogens. Greater effort was needed
to understand and mitigate the risk to cetaceans and the IWC
could play a significant role both in terms of direct action,
undertaking research and reaching out to other fora to coordinate responses. Cyprus also recognised the considerable
contribution made by the IWCs Scientific Committee to
research on small cetaceans. This work referred both to
capacity building and conservation for highly endangered
species. EU member countries had repeatedly made
contributions to the Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean
Conservation Research to underline the importance of this
line of thinking. Cyprus was convinced that this work would
continue to be important in the future.
France acknowledged the statement by Cyprus and drew
attention to its own efforts to reduce ship strikes through
work in the Pelagos Sanctuary in the Mediterranean and
the Agoa Project in the Caribbean where ways were being
sought with the IMO to reduce vessel strikes. In addition
France supported and would continue to contribute to
workshops held in conjunction with the IWC and other
states on the disentanglement response to whales within the
Caribbean. With regard to ship strikes, France emphasised
the importance of improving data collection within the IWC
and the added value of sharing information on strikes with
organisations such as ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS.
The Netherlands welcomed the initiative for a series of
workshops dealing with the problems of ship strikes and
entanglement response in the Caribbean. This issue was
of direct relevance to the Netherlands overseas territories
and it was pleased to be a member of the group of countries
supporting the workshops. The Netherlands recorded their
intention to financially support the organisation of the
workshops.
Panama was pleased that the Committee had been able
to meet for a full day. It thanked those delegations who
had shown support for the TSS proposals in Panamanian
waters and remained open to further suggestions on how
to continue with this project. Panama thanked the other cosponsors of IWC/64/WKM&AWI12 and indicated it was
pleased to support the efforts to hold workshops on ship
strike and entanglement reduction in the wider Caribbean

region. Argentina supported the recommendations of
the Conservation Committee as regards ship strikes and
in particular it emphasised the work done by Panama to
improve the management of navigation. It requested Panama
to present its work to next years Scientific Committee
meeting. Although Argentina is not part of the Caribbean
it expressed its interest in the proposals for workshops to
address entanglement response and ship strikes with UNEP,
as the collaborative work would strengthen both the partner
organisations and the IWC. Ecuador recorded the high value
it placed on work to reduce ship strikes.
Australia emphasised that the way to reduce the
likelihood of ship strikes was through the use of appropriate
and up to date data. However currently not all ship strikes
were reported and Australia highlighted the need for all
Contracting Parties to make such reports where strikes arise
within national waters. Australia also stressed the need for a
ship strikes data co-ordinator and indicated its full support
for this position. Belgium supported Australias comments
on the essential importance of collecting data regarding ship
strikes. It considered that the database co-ordinator should
also take on the role of raising awareness of the database and
establishing links with other industry and IGO conservation
bodies so as to further the IWCs work on this topic.
The USA stated its support for the Conservation
Committee as its work reaffirmed the conservation objective
of the Convention and improved the governance of the
Commissions conservation initiatives. It encouraged all
countries to participate. The USA provided an update on the
proposed TSS for the west coast of the USA and indicated
that it expected the IMOs Navigation Sub-Committee to
approve the proposals in the near future. Regarding the
proposals for a series of workshops addressing ship strikes
and entanglement response in the wider Caribbean, the USA
thanked all the co-sponsors and especially the Netherlands
for their offer of financial support
Spain referred to a workshop that will take place in
October 2012 in Tenerife to discuss maritime transport
and biodiversity conservation, especially cetaceans, in
the framework of a European project called Life Plus.
Participants will include the maritime traffic industry, marine
scientists, whalewatchers and other stakeholders including
the International Maritime Organisation. The workshop will
have an agenda to provide communication tools and systems
for educating sailors about the steps to be taken to prevent
risk to whales and also other marine life and habitats.
The Commission noted the Conservation Committees
report on this Item and endorsed its recommendations.
8.3 Southern right whales of Chile-Peru
An IWC Workshop on southern right whales was held in
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 13-16 September 2011. The results
of this Workshop were presented to the Scientific Committee
(SC/64/Rep5) which concurred with their recommendations,
in particular those to help clarify the status of this critically
endangered species and also to help identify any threats and
possible mitigation measures. The Workshop recommended
that surveys, photo-id and genetic studies should be
conducted.
The Conservation Committee reported that mobile
technology is being used in joint work between the Chilean
Navy and the NGO Centro de Conservacion Cetacea to
enable sightings of southern right whales to be reported
in real time. Given the critically endangered status of this

population it was requested that this item remain on the
agenda of the Conservation Committee.
Chile and Peru reiterated their commitment to the conservation of this critically endangered population. Chile
drew attention to the development of the Conservation
Management Plan17 and expressed its desire for international
cooperation to ensure the long term protection of the
species. Peru noted it had only a few records of this species
from its national waters but in accordance with the reports
of the Scientific and Conservation Committees, Peru was
supportive of all efforts to ensure the conservation and
viability of this whale species.
The Commission noted the Conservation Committees
report and endorsed any recommendations.
8.4 National Reports on Cetacean Conservation
Several countries had submitted voluntary national cetacean
conservation reports: Argentina (IWC/64/CC15), Australia
(IWC/64/CC4), Brazil (IWC/64/CC22), Chile (IWC/64/
CC21), France (IWC/64/CC14), Mexico (IWC/64/CC20),
New Zealand (IWC/64/CC19), UK (IWC/64/CC8) and USA
(IWC/64/CC5). The Committee welcomed these reports,
many parts of which had been discussed under earlier items.
More countries were encouraged to submit reports in future.
The USA noted that it would comment on two items
addressed in its Conservation Report (i.e. cetacean health
and disease and anthropogenic sound) under Item 18 below.
The Commission noted the report of the Conservation
Committee on this item and endorsed any recommendations.
8.5 Marine debris
The Scientific Committee noted that marine debris is
a growing concern for marine wildlife in general but
its interactions with cetaceans were poorly understood.
Accordingly the Scientific Committee reviewed several
papers on marine debris and recommended that a workshop
on marine debris and cetaceans be held in 201318. The
primary aim of the workshop would be to determine how
to best quantify the ways in which marine debris was
affecting cetaceans and how best to monitor and mitigate
for such effects. The workshop could also consider how best
to develop a centralised database to collate cases of debris
interactions, including the development of standardised
criteria for data to allow more certain identification of the
types of debris and the interactions involved.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee also referred to
the work being undertaken in the USA, Korea and Japan and
through the Steering Group for the IWC-POWER cruises
who are investigating how those cruises can contribute to
international efforts to collect more information on marine
debris19.
Australia suggested that the workshop should be held jointly
by the Scientific and Conservation Committees so as to
encompass both the scientific and management aspects of
the problem of marine debris.
See Item 9.1 for a full report of the Conservation Management Plan.
For further details, see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Annex K,
Appendix 3 [2013].
19
Further information is provided in J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14,
Annex G [2013].
17
18
27
The UK and Australia drew attention to the recent Rio

Ocean Declaration (in the outcomes document of The
Future We Want, para. 163) which called on all nations to
take action on marine pollution. They commented that the
IWC should cooperate with other international organisations
to address this threat.
Argentina referred to a paper20 on the ingestion of plastic
debris in 28% of 106 Franciscana dolphins incidentally
captured in artisanal fisheries on its northern coast. The
USA provided information on a new programme aimed
at combating the problem of derelict fishing gear called
Fishing for Energy and encouraged interested delegations
to join the initiative.
The Conservation Committee endorsed the proposal
for a joint workshop on marine debris by the Scientific and
Conservation Committees.
Australia shared the growing concern that pollution and
marine debris posed a significant threat to ecosystems
and biodiversity and as such it welcomed the work of the
Scientific Committee. The issue of marine debris had been
highlighted in the recent Rio Ocean Declaration as being of
global concern. Australia welcomed the workshop proposal
which it saw as an excellent example of collaborative
working between the Scientific and Conservation
Committees. It wished to ensure that all threat mitigation
efforts were based on good science and acknowledged that
a number of other international organisations were already
working on this topic and encouraged collaboration between
those organisations and the IWC.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of European member states party
to the IWC to indicate that it was delighted to participate in
the developing work of the Conservation Committee as it
considered the many issues facing cetaceans. It commended
the work of the Scientific Committee on marine debris
and highlighted that cetaceans can be harmed by both
entanglement and ingestion of plastics. It said that a number
of other intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) including
UNEP, CBD and the Rio Outcome Document had recognised
the need for co-ordinated action and encouraged the IWC to
participate.
The USA supported the Scientific Committees recommendations and noted that the UNEP global partnership
on marine litter was launched at a side event at the recent
Rio+20 Conference. This new partnership will act as a
coordination forum to unite diverse organisations and
encourage Governments, NGOs and scientists to collaborate.
The partnership built on the Honolulu agreement which the
USA highlighted to the IWC in 201121. In addition, the USA
drew attention to a domestic initiative called Fishing for
Energy which allowed fishermen to dispose of derelict
fishing gear at no cost. The recovered gear was transported
for free to a local energy facility and used as a source of
renewable energy.
The United Kingdom noted the work being undertaken
by a number of countries to reduce the effects of marine
debris and highlighted the recommendations from the
Scientific and Conservation Committees that the IWC
should co-operate with other IGOs to address the threats.
The UK also highlighted its support for the joint Scientific
and Conservation Committee workshop.
Denuncio et al. 2011. Plastic ingestion in Franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais and dOrbigny, 1844) from Argentina. Mar. Poll.
Bull. 62(8):1,836-1,841.
21
See Ann. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 2011: 86 [2012].
20
28
Austria supported any and all IWC endeavours in

the field of marine debris. It recalled that the IWC had
recognised several environmental concerns and marine
debris spanned three of these: habitat degradation, chemical
pollution and fishery interactions. It involved both IWC
scientific and technical work, e.g. on entanglement response
and the ingestion of plastic. It was one of the most visible
and perhaps controllable forms of pollution, ranging from
micro-plastics to giant nets and Austria therefore supported
and was looking forward to the results of the proposed
workshop to be held in 2013.
Argentina supported the recommendations of the
Scientific and Conservation Committees and highlighted
the effect of marine debris on the franciscana. In addition
it noted the reports of entanglement events affecting the
population of southern right whales and consequently it
wished to see continued action to address the problem of
marine debris.
Claire Bass of the World Society for the Protection
of Animals (WSPA) congratulated the Conservation
Committee on the excellent breadth and quality of its work.
WSPA believed IWC should divert a greater proportion of
its time and financial resources to its growing conservation
agenda and also that the Commission should undertake a
review of the work of its Scientific Committee with an aim
of affording more time and budget to its conservation work.
WSPA spoke on behalf of many NGOs in welcoming the
addition of marine debris to the Scientific and Conservation
Committees agendas through a joint workshop. As noted by
several member nations this issue already had the attention
of several IGOs including the United Nations and it
supported the suggestion that the IWC should co-operate to
achieve multi-agency solutions. WSPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), OceanCare, and Pro-Wildlife
showed their joint support for the initiative by collectively
contributing 17,000 in funding towards this workshop. The
Chair and the Chair of the Conservation Committee thanked
these organisations for their donation.
The Commission noted the reports of the Scientific and
Conservation Committees on this agenda item and endorsed
any recommendations.
8.6 Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean Conservation
Research
The Chair acknowledged the financial support provided to
the small cetacean conservation fund from both Contracting
Parties and Non-Governmental Organisation observers and
noted that much progress had been achieved through the use
of these donations.
In 2011 the Conservation Committee received a strong
recommendation from the Scientific Committees subcommittee on small cetaceans for funding nine high-standard
research and conservation projects under the Commissions
Voluntary Fund. All of the projects were aimed at improving
conservation outcomes for small cetacean species and
populations threatened or especially vulnerable to human
activities.
The Chair of the Scientific Committees sub-committee
on small cetaceans, Dr Caterina Fortuna, gave an update on
the current status of the Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean
Conservation and Research. Contributions received during
the past year had enabled all nine projects to be funded and
these were outlined through a PowerPoint presentation made

to the Conservation Committee. Particular emphasis was
given to the conservation and capacity building aspects of
each project.
As soon as sufficient additional funding for 2-3 projects
was secured a new call for proposals would be launched,
possibly by the end of 2012. The UK commended the work
being conducted under the Small Cetaceans fund and noted
that the IWC must not overlook the conservation of small
cetaceans, and applauded the work being done by Mexico
to protect the vaquita. In addition it noted its concern over
the continued hunting of Dalls porpoise, highlighted the
Scientific Committees concern over the hunting of Bairds
beaked whales and encouraged the provision of data to assist
the efforts of the Scientific Committee in its work.
The Chair of the Conservation Committee congratulated
the Scientific Committee on its work and the Chair of the
small cetaceans sub-committee in ensuring the successful
outcome of the projects.
Australia drew attention to the many global threats faced
by cetaceans and small cetaceans in particular. The projects
being taken forwards under the Voluntary Fund had a
global distribution and focused on critically endangered
populations. Australia hoped this work would continue to be
supported by contracting parties as it is a manner in which
the IWC can make a real and effective contribution towards
the conservation of small cetaceans.
The Netherlands expressed its concern at the lack of
protection for many small cetaceans worldwide and favoured
a stronger role for the IWC on small cetacean conservation. It
welcomed the work undertaken through the Small Cetacean
Conservation Fund and announced a voluntary donation
of 15,000 Euro to continue the Funds projects. Italy also
recalled its financial contribution to the Fund in 2011, and
announced a further contribution of 15,000 Euro for 2012.
The United Kingdom remarked that the level of support
for the Fund showed its importance and was delighted to
provide a donation of 10,000 GBP to the Fund in addition
to its contributions from previous years. France recalled that
it had supported the Fund financially since 2011 and would
continue to do so in 2012.
Argentina thanked those countries who had contributed
and continued to do so. It said that small cetaceans should
be considered as an integral part of the work of the IWC
and noted that the new sponsorship had given priority to the
small cetacean species and areas where little information
previously existed. Monaco congratulated the countries
that had contributed to the Voluntary Fund and hoped that
it would be able to do so soon. It recalled its concern at the
declining populations of many small cetacean populations
and highlighted that the word small was a misnomer as
some of the small cetaceans were as large as the small
whales. It stated that the IWC should give equal attention
to all cetaceans. India stated its support and appreciation
for the work of the Scientific Committee and said that
small cetacean species should be conserved at any cost.
Switzerland welcomed the work of the Scientific Committee
on small cetaceans and urged Contracting Governments to
take all necessary measures to reduce direct and indirect
takes, interaction with fisheries and to restore degraded
habitats.
Germany welcomed the tremendous and effective
work on the conservation of cetaceans and the financial
commitments of the Contracting Parties. Germany is a
contracting party to ASCOBANS22 where a variety of

conservation activities were being taken forwards, for
example the reduction of noise during piling operations in
the construction of offshore wind farms. Germany drew
attention to a harbour porpoise survey in the Baltic Sea
being conducted jointly with Denmark. This was expected to
provide a basis for further conservation measures including
fisheries technical measures. In addition Germany proposed
a fuller study on harbour propose in the Baltic Sea so as to
develop suitable mitigation measures.
Birgith Sloth of the Society for the Conservation of
Marine Mammals said that the Conservation Committee had
already proven its importance through work on ship strikes
and many other threats. All of these affected both large and
small cetaceans. Cetaceans were the ambassadors to the
sea and many observers found it difficult to understand the
damage caused to cetaceans, but when made aware how
human activities affected not just the giants of the sea but
also their small relatives it led to awareness and concern. The
IWC Voluntary Fund for Small Cetaceans was an excellent
example of how the expertise of the IWC could allow
cooperation between Governments and NGOs to ensure
better protection of endangered species. It also supported
important capacity building and awareness through the
communities involved in the projects. The Society for the
Conservation of Marine Mammals was pleased to announce
that the Danish coalition of NGOs had decided to commit
itself to collect and make available funding to support the
IWCs work on small cetaceans.
The Commission noted the report of the Conservation
Committee and endorsed any recommendations under this
Item.
8.7 Other
The Conservation Committee noted the report of the
Intersessional Correspondence Group on Strengthening
IWC Financing (IWC/64/F&A4) as presented to the Finance
and Administration Committee. Financing for projects and
research was required for the important work being done
across the IWC on issues such as ship strikes, entanglement,
CMPs and marine debris to contribute to the shared IWC
goal of healthy whale populations.
Australia raised the issue of cooperation with other
organisations noting the Scientific Committee process
of agreeing formal IWC observers to attend meetings of
other international organisations. Australia requested that
the Scientific Committee make reports to the Conservation
Committee where the work of such organisations is of
relevance to it. In addition it suggested that other organisations
whose work is relevant to the Scientific Committee should
be identified and a complementary initiative be instituted
through the Conservation Committee. Australia volunteered
to do some of this work intersessionally.
The Chair of the Conservation Committee announced that
Jim Gray (United Kingdom) had agreed to take up the role of
Vice-Chair for the Conservation Committee.
9. CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANS
At IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission endorsed a proposal
from the Conservation Committee to establish a Standing
Working Group on Conservation Management Plans
(CMP Working Group). The role of the working group is
to provide assistance to CMP proponents and facilitate
22
The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic,
North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas.
29
cooperation between the Conservation Committee and

Scientific Committee in areas relating to CMP nomination,
development, implementation, monitoring and review.
9.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Arabian Sea humpback whales
The Arabian Sea humpback population had previously been
identified by the Scientific Committee as a likely candidate
for an IWC Conservation Management Plan. To facilitate
this process an Intersessional Working Group was formed at
IWC/63 in 2011. Good progress had been made in assembling
the documentation required to submit a proposal to the
IWC for a candidate CMP. A key component of CMPs was
support from a broad range of stakeholders including range
state governments and the Scientific Committee welcomed
the work undertaken thus far and strongly recommended
that discussions between scientists and relevant range state
governments continue to further progress the CMP process.
Southern right whales
At IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission agreed that southern
right whales off South America should be the subject of
IWC Conservation Management Plans. Two draft plans
were available during the Scientific Committee meeting,
one for southwest Atlantic southern right whales (IWC/64/
CC7 Rev1) and one for southeastern Pacific southern right
whales (IWC/64/CC9). The Scientific Committee examined
these draft CMPs for their scientific content and found them
to be in accord with the results and recommendations from
the Commissions Workshop on the Status of Southern Right
Whales (SC/64/Rep3) and the southern right whale die-off.
The Scientific Committee noted that the CMP for western
North Pacific gray whales was already in action and that
one of the plans recommendations was for satellite tagging.
Several whales had been tagged and the CMP was being
updated using data from these whales (see Item 6.4.1).
9.2 Report of the Conservation Committee
9.2.1 Report from the Conservation Committees Standing
Working Group on CMPs
The report of the SWG on CMPs (IWC/64/CC12Rev) included a number of recommendations submitted to IWC/63.
The Commission had limited time to fully consider the CMP
documents in 2011 so they were submitted again to IWC/64,
noting that two of the recommendations have already
occurred:
that the CMP guidelines, templates and funding principles
presented in IWC/63/CC5 be adopted;
that these documents be placed on the IWC website for
use by members wishing to undertake a CMP;
that the Small Advisory Group on CMPs be reconstituted
as a Standing Working Group on CMPs (has occurred);
that the terms of reference for the CMP Working Group,
contained in IWC/63/CC5, be adopted (has occurred);
that the Scientific Committee be invited to undertake an
analysis of priority candidates for future CMPs; and
that the Conservation Committee be tasked with
undertaking an inventory of cetacean conservation
measures currently in place or underway in jurisdictions,
on a regional basis.
In addition the SWG on CMPs recommended that the
Conservation Committee endorse the following recommendations for cetacean conservation measures in the Pacific
Islands region, with a focus on Oceania humpback whales,
for consideration by the Commission:
30
that the Commission note the Review of Measures

for Marine Mammal Conservation, Protection and
Management in the Pacific Islands region in 2007 by
IFAW and SPREP;
that the Commission acknowledge the significant
cetacean conservation measures currently in place
to protect cetaceans in the Pacific Islands region, as
identified in this inventory;
that the Commission recognise the leadership of SPREP
in advancing cetacean conservation in the Pacific Islands
region, including through implementation of its regional
Whale and Dolphin Action Plan and its partnership
with CMS on the CMS Pacific Cetaceans MoU, and the
important role of organisations such as South Pacific
Whale Research Consortium;
that the Secretariat write to SPREP advising it of the
work of the Standing Working Group on CMPs and
inviting SPREP to participate as an observer to the
Working Group;
subject to the views of SPREP and the Pacific Island
Contracting Parties, if this inventory is considered a
useful model it is proposed that the Chair of the Working
Group contact SPREP with a view to exploring options
to further refine the inventory;
that similar regional inventories be developed for regions
around the globe as part of the work of the Conservation
Committee; and
that regional inventories of cetacean conservation
measures should be updated periodically (every 5-10
years or as appropriate).
The Conservation Committee thanked the SWG for its
work and endorsed all of the above the recommendations
including the request for the Scientific Committee to provide
a priority list and the invitation to SPREP to participate as
an observer. The Secretariat confirmed that they could
implement the request to SPREP.
The USA expressed continued support for CMPs as they
reaffirm the conservation objective of the Convention and
improve the Commissions conservation work.
9.2.2 Report of Conservation Committee discussions and
recommendations
Last year the IWC agreed to nominate the South American
southern right whale population for a CMP (see IWC/63/
CC4). Workshops held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in
September 2011 recommended that the plan be separated
into two, one for the southwest Atlantic southern right whale
and one for the southeast Pacific right whales.
SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALES
Argentina introduced the CMP for the southwest Atlantic

southern right whale (see IWC/63/CC7Rev1). A workshop
was held in Buenos Aires from 19-20 September 2011 to
begin the development of the CMP at which three documents
were considered:
(1) the Report of the Southern Right Whale Die-Off
Workshop;
(2) a Draft Proposal for an Action Plan for the Recovery of
Eastern South Pacific Southern Right Whales in Chile
(IWC/63/CC21Rev); and
(3) the conclusions and outcomes of the IWC Southern
Right Whale Assessment Workshop held in Buenos
Aires from 13-16 September 2011.
The overall objective of the CMP was to protect the southern
right whale habitat and minimise anthropogenic threats to
maximise the likelihood that southern right whales will

recover to healthy levels and recolonise their historical
range.
The following nine high priority actions were identified:
(1) implementation of the CMP;
(2) development of a strategy to increase public awareness
and build capacity in range states;
(3) determination of movements, migration routes and
location of feeding ground(s) through satellite telemetry;
(4) development of a GIS database on information on
human activities that might have an adverse impact on
whales;
(5) ensuring long-term monitoring of abundance, trends
and biological parameters through photo-identification
and biopsy sampling;
(6) enhancing the existing stranding networks including the
capacity for undertaking post-mortems;
(7) development of a regional entanglement response
strategy;
(8) development and implementation of a strategy to
minimise kelp gull harassment; and
(9) establishment of an expert advisory panel.
The most critical and urgent action was the implementation of the CMP. Funding must be found for this action
as soon as possible to appoint a coordinator and set up the
steering group to ensure that the CMP moves ahead in a
timely fashion. The estimated cost would be about 50,000,
to include funding of the first meeting of the interim steering
committee and the salary of a co-ordinator.
The Conservation Committee endorsed the CMP for the
southwest Atlantic southern right whale and recommended
it to the Commission, noting the need for funding.
SOUTHEAST PACIFIC SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALES
The southeast population of Pacific right whales is critically

endangered and is estimated to include less than 50 mature
individuals. The CMP is based on Chiles national plan of
action submitted last year (IWC/63/CC21Rev), so some
actions of the plan were already operational. The objective
is to take steps which will allow the species to withstand
both environmental and anthropogenic impacts and ensure
its long term survival. Lack of information is the biggest
limitation to protection so the short term objectives focus
on:
(1) compiling a baseline of information to include in
particular population size and area of concentration,
breeding and feeding grounds, stock structure, etc.;
(2) conducting a detailed assessment of potential impacts in
identified areas of concentration; and
(3) developing specific mitigations despite the shortage of
information.
The CMP requires the establishment of a co-ordinator
and Steering Committee. The Conservation Committee
thanked Chile for its excellent work, endorsed the CMP for
the Southeast Pacific right whale, and recommended it to the
Commission noting the need for funding for the co-ordinator
role.
9.3 Commission discussions and action arising
Chile commended the Conservation Committees good work
in developing CMPs for the different populations.
Conservation Committees on this agenda item and endorsed
any recommendations. Discussion on the funding of the two
CMPs for southern right whales was held under Item 25.3.4.
10. WHALEWATCHING
In 2011 the Commission endorsed the IWC Five Year
Strategic Plan for Whalewatching pending review by the
Scientific Committee of the Plans research and assessment
objectives prior to the Commissions meeting in 2012. Also
in 2011 the Commission reviewed and updated the terms
of reference for the Conservation Committees Standing
Working Group on Whalewatching (SWG-WW) and
expanded its membership to include two members of the
The Scientific Committee discussed aspects of whalewatching in response to Commission Resolution 1994-14,
and its full report on whalewatching is provided in Annex M
of the Report of the Scientific Committee23. A brief summary
is provided below.
Assessment of the impacts of whalewatching on cetaceans
The Scientific Committee received reports of data collected
during whalewatching trips and also received reports of
the development of statistical models to help examine
the potential effects of whalewatching. The Committee
welcomed both of these types of study and suggested that
collaboration take place between these two research groups
to test the models.
The Scientific Committee reviewed whalewatching
off Central America and was pleased to learn that many
countries held workshops to train and certify operators in
best practices. However this was not the case for all countries
and the Committee recommended that those not currently
doing so could establish training workshops.
Reports from Intersessional Working Groups
The Scientific Committee has developed a Large Scale
Whalewatching Experiment (LaWE) to understand the
mechanisms and large-scale effects of whalewatching on
whale populations. To start these investigations the Committee
received an initial analysis using information from 10
different whalewatching operations around the world. This
showed that some whales and dolphins change their resting
behaviour and swimming paths though smaller sized species
were more likely to be affected by whalewatching vessels.
The Committee reported that it is developing a database
to record details of worldwide whalewatching operations.
In addition, it reported that it had received a questionnaire
that had been developed and field tested for operators that
conducted swim with whale operations. The questionnaire
would be presented more widely over the coming
intersessional period and the Committee expected to receive
results within two years.
Other issues
The Committee discussed the scientific aspects of the
Commissions Five Year Strategic Plan for Whalewatching
and made detailed recommendations. It had commenced an
intersessional correspondence group to help develop the
guiding principles under Action 1.1 of the strategic plan.
In addition the Committee reported that it would complete
Action 1.2 during the intersessional period and report on this
at the next meeting.
The Committee received the report of the regional
marine mammal workshop held in Panama in October 2011.
This brought together marine mammal tour operators and
government regulators from across the Caribbean region.
23
See J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14 [2013].
31
The Scientific Committee recorded its concern at

unregulated whalewatching on the small Arabian Sea
humpback whale population which is also affected by ship
strikes. The Committee recommended that operators receive
training in best practices for whalewatching operations
and to aid the interpretation and implementation of revised
whalewatching guidelines. A funding proposal to support
this had been presented to the Budgetary Sub-committee.
10.2.1 Report of the Standing Working Group on
Whalewatching
The Chair of the Standing Working Group on Whalewatching
(SWG-WW) reported on the groups activities over the
past year which included examination of each section of
the Five-Year Strategic Plan (see IWC/64/CC6, Annex B).
The SWG-WW developed recommendations on how to
move forward on actions that were outside the focus of the
Scientific Committee review and on which actions should
be implemented through the web-based living handbook.
The SWG-WW also decided that it would greatly benefit
from industry input and recommended the inclusion of two
industry representatives on the SWG-WW as ex officio
participants. Nominees for the first two representatives were
recommended to come from Australia and Mexico with
potential funding support from the IWC.
The SWG-WW Chair outlined the future work of the
SWG-WW and expressed hope that the Plan will be finalised
at IWC/64. To allow for a possible Commission decision
to move to biennial meetings at IWC/64, the SWG-WW
proposed a plan of work for the potential intersessional
period of 2012-14. The following four recommendations of
the SWG-WW were highlighted.
(1) The addition and potential funding of two ex officio
industry representatives to the SWG-WW.
(2) The two requested documents from the Secretariat to
facilitate implementation of the Plan.
(3) The SWG-WW work plan for the proposed intersessional
period of 2012-14.
(4) Adoption, after discussion, of any accepted changes to
the Five-Year Strategic Plan suggested by the Scientific
Committee.
The SWG-WW Chair also presented document IWC/64/
CC24, which highlighted the changes to the Action Plan 201116 based on the Scientific Committee recommendations.
The Conservation Committee thanked the SWG-WW for
the good progress that has taken place on the co-ordination
of work on whalewatching during the intersessional period
and thanked Ryan Wulff for his leadership of this important
group.
10.2.2 Report of the Conservation Committee discussions
Many delegates expressed support for the work of the
SWG-WW and the comments of the individual delegates are
recorded in the Conservation Committees report (Annex
F, Item 6.3). The Conservation Committee endorsed the
recommendations of the SWG on whalewatching and
endorsed the Five-Year Strategic Action Plan.
The USA reported on its existing and on-going research
efforts to inform the management of all whalewatching
activities, including the use of regional voluntary viewing guidelines and regulations. While the majority of
whalewatching in the USA was managed through voluntary
guidelines, whalewatching was managed under regulations
32
for endangered humpback wales in Alaska and Hawaii,

endangered North Atlantic right whales and endangered
southern resident killer whales. The USA worked with
whalewatching operators domestically and internationally
to support the development of responsible practices and the
provision of benefits to local communities. Most notably,
the USA and its partners in the NGO community sponsored
the Dolphin Smart and Whalesense programmes which
were voluntary recognition and education programmes
to encourage responsible viewing by whalewatching
businesses. Businesses that participate were provided with
outreach material for their customers and the opportunity
to advertise their participation in marketing campaigns.
The USA noted the work of the Small Working Group on
Whalewatching and fully endorsed the adoption of the FiveYear Strategic Plan.
India recorded its support for whalewatching and
ecotourism so long as it is undertaken safely for both whales
and the whalewatchers. During whalewatching all safeguards
for environmental protection should be taken and protocols
followed to specifically address the impact on the time and
space of the targeted species. Whalewatching could generate
alternative sustainable livelihoods for aboriginal communities
engaged in whaling operations and India supported efforts to
build sustainable whalewatching industries.
Argentina supported the work of the SWG-WW and the
recommendations of the Conservation Committee. It noted
that whalewatching had taken place in Argentina since the
1970s and that recently whalewatching vessels had been
fitted with satellite vessel monitoring systems so as to
enable their positions and tracks to be recorded. This year
the whalewatching season had been affected by volcanic
activity in the Andes mountains which had reduced visitor
numbers by 16% compared to the 2010 season.
Panama highlighted the importance of whalewatching as
a wonderful non-lethal use of whale resources which helped
the development of coastal communities. It explained that
part of its reason for hosting the Commissions 64th Annual
Meeting was to promote Panama as a world class destination
for whalewatching. It was pleased to see the adoption of
the Five-Year Strategic Plan as a tool for continuing work
on best practices under the auspices of the IWC. Panama
noted the recommendations made by both the Scientific
and Conservation Committees regarding some of the
whalewatching activities taking place, and thanked the
Government of Argentina who had worked closely with
authorities, academia and civil society to train operators in
whalewatching practices on both the Pacific and Caribbean
coasts. It also thanked participants to the marine mammal
watching workshop held in Panama in October 2011 and
indicated it would continue to support and promote similar
activities in the future.
Cyprus, on behalf of the European member states party
to the IWC thanked both the Scientific Committee and
the Conservation Committee for their work. It noted that
whalewatching provides incomes and benefits for many
coastal communities all over the world. When managed
wisely, whalewatching was a well-respected, non-lethal and
sustainable use of cetacean resources and a driving force
for the development of ecotourism. Cyprus commented
that in addition to the wide ranging socioeconomic benefits
which arise from whalewatching that it can also make an
important contribution to scientific research. There are now
several examples where whalewatching boats have served
as platforms for the study of cetacean populations and in
the past few years the increased work on whalewatching
has led to an increased dialogue between the Scientific and

Conservation Committees. The expertise provided by the
Scientific Committee could be further developed to produce
science based management options for whalewatching.
The Dominican Republic commended the Conservation
Committee for its work and emphasised that whalewatching
is a significant industry within its country. It stated that it
was beginning to engage in dialogue with other Caribbean
countries to set up sister sanctuary arrangements and it
encouraged all countries present to continue conducting
studies on whalewatching in the waters of the Dominican
Republic. It noted that financial resources from the USA,
France and the Dominican Republic were being used to
support such studies. Ecuador also commended the work of
the Conservation Committee and reiterated the importance of
whalewatching in supporting the livelihoods of developing
coastal communities.
Colombia reiterated its commitment to the IWCs
agenda for the conservation of healthy whale populations as
an integral part of the marine ecosystem and supported the
work of the Conservation Committee. Each year Colombias
Pacific coast shelters female humpback whales who raise
calves, and responsible whalewatching based on established
protocols is used to generate income.
Chile commended the work of the Conservation
Committee and stated that whalewatching was an important
non-lethal use of whales. It expressed gratitude for the
recommendations of the Scientific Committee which it was
currently implementing.
Korea introduced its whalewatching pilot project which
was operational in the Ulsan area. The project had only been
established for three years and it was premature to assess
socio-economic benefits to date, but Korea continued to
promote whalewatching tourism.
Augusto Gomez, President of the Whalewatching Boat
Owners Association of Saman Bay in the Dominican
Republic emphasised the importance of whalewatching in the
Dominican Republic and wider Caribbean where 23 countries
currently carried out whalewatching operations. Each year in
the Dominican Republic around 40,000 tourists take part in
whalewatching which provided revenue of US$2.3million
over a season of 72 days duration. This rapidly growing
industry also provided US$9million in indirect benefits. He
noted that whales are a vitally important resource which
supported a fleet of 43 boats owned by up to eight companies
in Saman Bay, most of whom are native Dominicans and
former fishermen. He commented that the whales face
various threats including climate change, pollution, ship
strikes, entanglement in coastal areas and sound pollution as
well as whale hunting. The whales are a shared resource of
the wider Caribbean, and the Whalewatching Boat Owners
Association called on the representatives of all nations
present to prevent the co-existence of contrary activities on
the same Caribbean populations of whales. He reminded
those nations of the value of whales when alive and the
financial gain which whalewatching brought to the coastal
communities of the Caribbean.
Conservation Committees on whalewatching and endorsed
any recommendations.
11. WHALE KILLING METHODS AND
ASSOCIATED WELFARE ISSUES
The Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and
Associated Welfare Issues met in Panama on 25 June 2012.
Michael Stachowitsch (Austria) chaired the meeting which

was attended by 24 Contracting Governments. A summary
of the Working Groups discussions is included below and
the full report is available at Annex G.
11.1 Data provided on whales killed
Report of the Working Group
The Working Group received reports from the USA on its
bowhead whale hunt (IWC/64/WKM&AWI8 and IWC/64/
WKM&AWI10), from Denmark on their Greenlandic hunts
(IWC/64/WKM&AWI7), from the Russian Federation
on its gray whale hunt (IWC/64/WKM&AWI6) and from
Norway on its minke whale hunt (IWC/64/WKM&AWI9).
A document from New Zealand (IWC/64/WKM&AWI4) on
euthanasia of stranded cetaceans deemed beyond hope of
rescue was also reviewed. Three countries stated that they
provided whale killing data to NAMMCO as they considered
it to be a more suitable venue.
Australia supported by Mexico noted that a major mandate

of the Working Group was to provide a mechanism by which
improvements and efficiencies can be achieved in hunting
techniques such that the welfare of the hunted whales can
be improved. Such improvements rely on open exchange of
information and collaboration between members who share
and promulgate improved techniques. Australia noted that
the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission presented data
that demonstrated improvements in hunting efficiency and it
welcomed these data as did many other members. However
Australia highlighted its concern at the highly variable
pattern of reporting of whale killing data by some other
members. It noted that three of these members informed the
Working Group that they provide their data to a different
organisation. Australia respected the rights of countries to
report their data to multiple organisations but it did not view
this as an alternative to the IWC.
Australia believed that the reporting of comprehensive
whale killing data is a core responsibility of any member
involved in hunting whales. To not do so to the IWC was
an abrogation of that responsibility. The lack of these data
inhibited the Commissions ability to deal with important
welfare issues that are in the interest of all members to
address. Australia strongly urged all members to submit
their data and facilitate the improved ability of the Working
Group to achieve its mandated task. Argentina called on all
countries to submit data so as to allow the Commission to
work at an optimal level.
Japan recalled that in the past it had voluntarily presented
reports on killing methods and related welfare considerations
to the IWC for the purpose of improvement of killing
methods, reduction of time to death and also the safety of
the workers. These reports had allowed a reduction of time
to death and an improvement in the efficiency of the hunt.
However Japan stated that the data and the information that
it provided was not always used for the purposes for which
it was intended and instead it had been used by anti-whaling
organisations. Therefore Japan would reserve the right to
present data on killing methods to the IWC. Japan would
present data collected in the North Pacific to NAMMCO and
would continue its constructive efforts for the improvements
of whale killing and for the enhanced welfare of whales.
Norway stated that it had submitted more than 25 reports
on whale killing statistics to the IWC since 1983. In addition
it had participated in IWC workshops from 1980 to 1992,
33
1995, 1999, 2003 and 2006 and in total submitted data for
more than 5,500 minke whales. In this way Norway had
discussed the animal welfare problems associated with
whaling at length and had worked to improve both the
Norwegian hunt and hunts in other countries. However it had
found that the discussions in IWC were not very productive
and on occasion had been counterproductive. Norway had
therefore decided to move its focus over to a body where
discussions could be based on animal welfare and not the
politics associated with whaling. Norway said it would
continue to discuss these matters in NAMMCO because of
its philosophy that whale hunting is a legal activity and that it
would continue to help the hunters to improve their methods
and through this, improve animal welfare in the hunt.
11.2 Improving the humaneness of whaling operations
11.2.1 National Reports
USA
The Chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

commented on the efficiency of the 2011 hunt which was
75%. The ongoing weapons and training improvements
had continued and the use and success of the new penthrite
grenade was increasing.
Norway
Norway reported on the long history of its research and

the improvements to whale killing methods which it had
instigated. It reported that 80% of the animals are rendered
instantaneously and irreversibly unconscious as opposed to
only 17% in the 1980s. Norway also played a major role
in assisting other countries with training and improved
technology.
St Vincent and The Grenadines noted that its whalers

currently use darting guns and that there had been a general
improvement in times to death from between 30-40 minutes
to about 10-20 minutes except in extenuating circumstances
such as bad weather. St Vincent and The Grenadines remained
committed to the improvement of the humaneness of its hunt
and was investigating the possibility of upgrading its darting
guns to use the more effective penthrite explosive. It was
holding discussions with the USA and other countries on
this matter and would report its progress to the Commission
and appropriate Committees in due course.
The Russian Federation highlighted that it voluntarily
submitted the data to the Working Group which demonstrated
that the time to death for gray whales had declined by
30% recently and the amount of shots per animal had also
declined. This year the local Government of Chukotka had
supported the efforts of the local population to improve the
humaneness of the hunt through the purchase of 45 darting
guns which were distributed to coastal villages with the help
of the Union of Marine Mammal Hunters.
The Russian Federation expressed gratitude to Dr Egil
en for his support in the training of the marine mammal
hunters, to the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission for
their constant support, to the coastal communities of Japan
who provided technical support and to the Government of
the Netherlands which helped with organising the workshop
for training the marine mammal hunters. The Russian
Federation confirmed that it would continue to voluntarily
provide information to the IWC Working Group on the
welfare of its hunt.
34
11.3 Welfare issues associated with the entanglement of

large whales
11.3.1 Presentation of the report of the second IWC Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the Entanglement
of Large Whales
The Working Group received the report of the second

IWC Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the
Entanglement of Large Whales (IWC/64/WKM&AWI Rep
1). This workshop built on the progress made at the first
IWC Workshop in 2010 and also reviewed the findings of
a workshop held in 2011 to develop recommendations for
stranded whale euthanasia methods. A major outcome of
the workshop was the development of a set of Principles
and Guidelines for Entanglement Response which were
summarised in five points:
(1) first comes human safety;
(2) second animal welfare;
(3) the entanglement response can contribute to the conservation of large whale populations as well as animal
welfare issues;
(4) data collection to assist with identifying key fisheries
and whale populations to better describe the problem
and assist with mitigation and prevention should be an
integrated part of the entanglement response; and
(5) awareness at all levels to improve reporting and appropriate measures to address the mentioned issues.
The Workshop agreed on an outline for capacity building
and training and requested that the Commission endorse
the global network of entanglement response operations,
the guidelines and principles for disentanglement response
and the recommended approach to capacity building and
training.
With regard to capacity building the Workshop requested
the Commission to consider the following approach:
(1) to establish a dynamic entanglement response section
on the IWC website;
(2) to consider establishing an international entanglement
database;
(3) to facilitate data exchange;
(4) to promote establishment of national entanglement
response networks;
(5) to provide advice to Member Governments;
(6) to develop a proposal for an international workshop on
entanglement prevention; and
(7) to continue to promote an IWC-managed fund for the
entanglement response.
The Working Group strongly endorsed the conclusions
and recommendations contained in the Workshops report
and commended them to the Commission.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states party to the

IWC and stated that the IWC is the global body responsible
for the conservation and management of the worlds whales.
For over 60 years the Commission had played a role in
addressing animal welfare issues. Cyprus believed that
integrating animal welfare into the full spectrum of the
IWCs work would contribute to moving away from a debate
that centred on whaling and would allow consideration of
animal welfare issues in much broader terms. Support for
the recommendations of the report would allow the IWC
to move towards a more scientific, integrated and objective
approach to decision-making in the field of animal welfare

and ethical concerns.
The USA supported by Mexico endorsed all of the
recommendations contained within the report of the second
Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the Entanglement
of Large Whales. It fully supported the principles and
guidelines contained within the report as well as the capacitybuilding curriculum developed at the Workshop.
The Republic of Korea stated that euthanasia was not
feasible where bycaught whales were found dead in nets.
However, under Article 10 of its new Directive on the
Conservation and Management of Cetacean Resources
which was implemented on 3 January 2011 any person who
had accidentally caught a cetacean must report it to the local
police station and take the necessary measures to rescue the
cetacean if it is found alive.
11.3.2 Report of the Technical Experts secondment to the
Secretariat
The Working Group received a report of David Mattilas

secondment to the Secretariat and his work to support the
capacity building programme for entanglement response.
This included conducting seminars in Argentina and Brazil
on the theory and practice of entanglement response and
mitigation.
Mexico thanked Dr Mattila for his work and the USA noted
the success of the seminars held in Argentina and Brazil in
2012 and announced a further voluntary donation of $12,000
to facilitate additional work on entanglement response
and to support training of apprentices from Argentina and
Brazil in advanced water entanglement response. Brazil and
Argentina thanked the USA for its financial contribution and
the IWC for the training workshops held in 2012. Argentina
noted that entanglement response was an issue on which all
parties could work together.
11.3.3 Proposal to address human impacts on cetaceans in
the wider Caribbean
The Working Group received a proposal sponsored by the

Dominican Republic, France, Mexico, Panama and the USA
to help address indirect human impacts on marine mammals
in the wider Caribbean region including entanglements and
ship strikes. The document proposed that the Secretariats
of the IWC and the UNEP Caribbean Environment
Programmes (CEP) Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
(SPAW) Action Plan should work together to convene
workshops on:
large whale entanglement response, with one workshop
planned for 2012 and a second in 2013 for Spanish and
French speakers respectively; and
an interdisciplinary ship strike workshop to be held in
201324.
The Working Group welcomed and supported this
collaborative initiative and commended it to the Commission.
Mexico reiterated its interest in holding the workshop on

disentanglement, entanglement response and ship strike
reduction.
See also Item 8.2.2 for the Conservation Committees discussion of the
proposed ship strike workshop.
24
11.4 Whale welfare

11.4.1 Intersessional work by the United Kingdom on
welfare and ethics
The Working Group received a report from the United

Kingdom on the intersessional workshop which it convened
in March 2012 in London (see IWC/64/WKM&AWI3).
There was considerable discussion within the Working
Group on how the IWC might take the issues forwards,
following which the Working Group requested the
Commissions approval that it forms an adhoc intersessional
working group to:
(1) review its Terms of Reference and existing Action Plan;
and
(2) identify and agree upon important issues or themes to
progress the promotion of good animal welfare and
agree a timetable of regular future technical workshops
on these issues.
In addition the Working Group recommended the
development of plans for an expert workshop on the
euthanasia of large whales (both stranded animals and those
entangled whales for which euthanasia appears to be the only
option in accordance with the decision tree developed at the
Maui Workshop). This workshop could take advantage of
the extensive previous discussions at IWC expert workshops
relating to the criteria for determining unconsciousness and
death in whales. The technical workshops would report back
to the relevant working groups, recognising the success of
previous IWC workshops on specific issues incorporating
invited external experts.
Finally, the Working Group recommended that the
Secretariat be asked to: (a) develop a database of external
contacts with expertise in animal welfare science pertinent
to work being undertaken by the Commission; and (b)
recommend to the Commission opportunities for constructive
co-operation with other relevant animal welfare bodies.
Argentina, Brazil, India and the USA thanked the UK for

holding the intersessional workshop and supported its
recommendations. The USA congratulated the Head of
Science on his presentation to the workshop and requested
it be made available to Commissioners via the website.
Colombia stated that it was important to continue working
on euthanasia and response to entanglements and suggested
that the Secretariat could develop a database of contact
information for specialists within and outside the IWC who
could work jointly to help manage such cases. Colombia,
Mexico and the USA insisted that animal welfare should not
be limited to whale hunting and should extend to all aspects
addressed by the IWC including responsible whalewatching.
Colombia supported the strengthening of financial
mechanisms for activities related to animal welfare. Mexico
indicated that it was developing new regulations to govern
whalewatching and India recognised the need to implement
measures to circumvent the under-reporting of entangled
whales. The USA recorded its desire to participate in the
forthcoming euthanasia workshop as well as in future work
related to the Working Groups recommendations.
The United Kingdom thanked the countries who had
participated in the positive discussions surrounding welfare
issues and indicated it would co-ordinate the intersessional
work and convene the workshop on euthanasia of stranded
whales next year. It invited all Contracting Parties to
participate in the work and said it would report back to
IWC/65 in 2014.
35
Claire Bass of The World Society for the Protection

of Animals (WSPA) congratulated the United Kingdom
on its constructive leadership on the animal welfare issue
and welcomed the recognition in the workshop report that
numerous human activities in the marine environment can
have direct and indirect adverse impacts on whale welfare.
WSPA welcomed the recognition by Cyprus, Colombia,
USA and others that animal welfare is relevant and important
to a wide range of issues discussed within the IWC,
including but not limited to ship strikes, whalewatching,
entanglements and scientific research, as well as whaling.
Furthermore, it was encouraged that the United Kingdom
workshop recommendations had been well-received by
the Commission and that there was an opportunity for
constructive and collaborative work on animal welfare to
take place. Given the relevance and importance of animal
welfare across the spectrum of the IWCs work WSPA
believed that it would be beneficial for the Working Group
to begin to draft guiding principles on animal welfare. It
suggested that such principles be of a general nature, not
specific to particular activities, and that they could be used
by the Commission and all of its working bodies to help
ensure clarity and consistency of approach to the promotion
of good animal welfare across all areas of the IWCs work.
Noting the likely costs in realising the recommendations
for example, the possible need for an intersessional meeting
WSPA wished to donate 3,000 towards the costs of these
activities.
The Commission noted the report of the Working Group
on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues
and endorsed its recommendations.
12. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND
Small-type WHALING
Japan introduced IWC/64/9 which was a proposal to amend
the Schedule of the ICRW so as to establish a minke whale
catch limit for Japanese small-type whaling vessels. Japan
noted that previous IWC Resolutions had recognised the
importance of the socio-economic, cultural and traditional
needs arising from coastal and small-type whaling especially
given the impact of the moratorium. It highlighted the
importance of allowing coastal communities to use their
resources sustainably and noted that the need to alleviate
the difficulties being faced by those communities had
previously been agreed to some extent. However Japans
requests on this matter had always been rejected. From 1986
to 1995 Japan had submitted 37 anthropological, social and
economic research papers by international experts in the
field of the history, culture and tradition of coastal whaling.
The coastal whaling culture shares many aspects in common
with the aboriginal subsistence whaling which is approved
by the IWC through its catch limits.
Japan explained that its proposal would allow the
traditional regional culture of landing, processing and
consumption of whales to be restored. Traditional
ceremonies and rituals would also be restored. Catch limits
would be allocated to the regional communities. Japans
proposal was not to request a lifting of the moratorium but
instead to ask for an exemption to the moratorium, as in the
case of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling.
Japan confirmed that document IWC/64/9 did not indicate
a specific catch quota because it was willing to negotiate
on this issue with Contracting Governments. It stated that
in order to secure an appropriate level of whaling activity
36
it was intending to introduce monitoring and surveillance

measures which included acceptance of an international
inspection and monitoring protocol. This would include a
vessel monitoring system and also DNA registration of the
whale meat obtained. Japan said that to ensure transparency,
reliability and accountability it was willing to accept IWC
Contracting Governments forming a monitoring committee.
Japan commented that it had shown through document
SC/61/O15 that the catch of minke whales by this proposal
would be negligible in terms of the long term sustainability
of the stock. In addition document SC/62/NPM31 showed
that the J-stock could not be considered as a protection stock
under the terms of the New Management Procedure.
Japan proposed that the duration of the catch limits
should be either five or six years in order to accommodate
the proposed cycle of IWC biennial meetings. It reemphasised that: (1) the landing, processing, allocation and
consumption of whales are traditional practices and that
the whaling would be permitted in order to restore those
community based practices; (2) the consumption of the meat
and products would be limited to domestic consumption
and the landing and processing would take place within the
traditional regions and communities; and (3) the catches of
minke whales from the Pacific would be negligible in terms
of the long term sustainability of the stock and the J-stock
minke bycatch which may occur in small numbers is also
negligible in terms of the long term sustainability.
Japan repeated that its proposal is not to lift the
moratorium but rather to request an exemption to it under the
control of the IWC. Monitoring and surveillance measures
coupled with an oversight committee would ensure that
excessive catching would not take place and that the whaling
activity would be transparent. It hoped that all Contracting
Governments would support the proposal and that it could
be adopted by consensus.
The President of the Small Type Whaling Association
said that 25 years have passed since the commercial whaling
moratorium came into effect in the coastal waters of Japan.
The whaling communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura
and Taiji previously engaged in small-type whaling as an
integral part of their history. Small-type whaling operations
are limited in scale and Japanese research has shown that
coastal minke whale resources are healthy and abundant.
Historical evidence shows that ancestral communities had
started utilising beached whales thousands of years ago in a
move which created the beginning of the Japanese whaling
industry. Whale meat and blubber are traditional food
and whale dishes are an indispensable part of weddings,
funerals and the New Year season. The meat and blubber
of the first whale caught each season is distributed to the
local people and such traditional practises have been
passed down from generation to generation. The Small
Type Whaling Association believed that its communities
have survived today thanks to their whaling activities. The
IWCs Convention stipulates that its purpose is to ensure the
sustainable use of whales and for the orderly development
of the whaling industry. Unfortunately IWCs commercial
whaling moratorium had caused great distress to the Japanese
coastal communities for a quarter of a century. The Small
Type Whaling Association continued to hope that the IWC
will return to the spirit and letter of its charter and establish
a minke whale quota for its communities before it rendered
itself entirely irrelevant to the issue of whaling management.
Korea expressed its support for the Japanese proposal
because it would allow the maintenance of their long coastal
whaling tradition and the associated cultural and nutritional
needs for whale meat as a traditional dish. Korea commented

that Japans situation was similar to its own and referred to
the presentation it made of whaling history around Ulsan
at IWC/61 in 2009. It commented that dietary cultures
which developed based upon the historical and geographical
environment were not easy to change. Korea expressed
concern about the absence of a practical review of Article
10(e) of the Schedule which requires the Commission to
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the
moratorium and consider modifications.
Iceland said that the long history of the Japanese proposal
to establish catch limits for small-type coastal whaling
showed that the IWC is still having problems functioning
in a regular and sensible way. Iceland associated with Japan
and Korea and stated that sustainability is the main issue. As
long as the hunting is sustainable, Iceland would support the
proposal.
St Vincent and The Grenadines identified with the plight
of the coastal communities of Japan and highlighted the need
to understand the cultures of peoples who lived in differing
conditions and who depended upon marine resources for
their subsistence and survival. It noted the inherent desire of
all independent peoples to retain their traditions and culture
in a sustainable manner and supported the proposal made on
behalf of the coastal peoples of Japan.
The Republic of Guinea commented that it was in favour
of the protection and conservation of marine resources and
that whaling was banned under its laws governing fishing.
However, the IWCs Scientific Committee was able to
assess stocks and could define what could be removed
without harm to existing stocks and that it was necessary to
consider the traditions relating to peoples lives. If there is
no threat to the stock it could not see why the IWC would
adopt a philosophy which continuously rejected requests to
take whales and jeopardised local populations. In this regard
it requested that such issues be dealt with in the light of
scientific advice.
Australia stated that the proposal by Japan sought
permission from the IWC to carry out a commercial
whaling venture. This was confirmed by the request to
include this quota under Paragraph 10 of the Schedule as
an exception to the moratorium on commercial whaling.
Australia confirmed it was resolutely opposed to all forms
of commercial whaling and that it strongly supported the
global moratorium on commercial whaling that was put in
place by the IWC. Australia could not support a proposal
that would legitimise commercial whaling and completely
undermine the moratorium in the process. Australia believed
that the proposed Schedule amendment made a mockery of
the scientific advice given the concerns over the viability
of minke whale populations in the northwest Pacific arising
from the impacts of existing whaling under JARPN II,
the increased accidental catch, entanglements and other
emerging threats to cetaceans including ship strikes,
climate change, marine pollution and the risks the proposal
represents to the J-stock for which the conservation status
remains unknown. Australia stated the total mortality of
whales had continued to escalate over the past decade. The
Commission has recognised concerns over the conservation
status of J-stock minke whales and has listed this population
as a Protection Stock under Schedule Paragraph 10(c) which
clearly stipulates that there shall be no commercial whaling
on protection stocks. Australia emphasised that it could not
support a proposal that would legitimise commercial whaling
and it expressed deep concerns over the disregard of science
through the proposed Schedule amendment. Australia said
that efforts must be made to recover this whale population

and that the range states concerned should be putting their
efforts into a conservation management plan. Monaco stated
its strong opposition to commercial whaling and supported
the statement by Australia.
The USA associated itself with the comments of Australia
and highlighted its concern regarding the large removals of
minke whales in the waters off Japan and Korea. The USA
supported the Scientific Committee completing its review of
these stocks as a matter of the highest priority and noted
that this was expected to be achieved in 2013. The USA
confirmed that it supported the moratorium on commercial
whaling and could not support the Japanese proposal.
Denmark enquired if the figure for the minke whale
catch limit would also cover scientific whaling or whether
the requested quota would be additional to whales taken
under special permit.
The Russian Federation commented that Japan started to
use whales 9,000 years ago with large whale hunts dating
back 2,000 years. Only Korea had a similarly long traditional
history and indeed the first international agreement on
whales was signed between Japan and Korea in the 19th
century. The four coastal villages highlighted by Japan had
the longest history of whaling and it is important to protect
not only biodiversity but also cultural traditions. Resolution
2004-2 reaffirmed the Commissions commitment to work
to alleviate the continued difficulties caused by the cessation
of minke whaling in Japanese coastal towns and the Russian
Federation suggested that the decision on the proposal
contained in IWC/64/9 should be taken at the current
meeting rather than waiting a further year for the outcome
of the Scientific Committees analysis of the North Pacific
minke whale stocks.
New Zealand commented that this was a difficult issue
and that the initial impact of the moratorium on Japanese
communities should not be underestimated. However, the
moratorium came into effect over 25 years ago. New Zealand
expressed its sympathy to the plight of the communities
following the great east Japan earthquake and tsunami and
recalled that it was one of the first countries to send a search
and rescue team after that event. However the proposal in
IWC/64/9 asked for an exception to the moratorium on
commercial whaling which could not be accepted by the IWC.
Furthermore the status of the stocks being fished, including
by members of these communities under Japans so-called
research programs, is highly questionable and accordingly
New Zealand stated it could not support the proposal.
Mexico stated it could not support the proposal because
it wished to defend the moratorium on commercial whaling
and because the Scientific Committees report indicated a
complex population structure for North Pacific minke whales
and an associated risk to the J-stock. It noted that the boats
involved in small-type whaling already took part in scientific
whaling which has authorised hundreds of whales to be
hunted. Mexico recalled that researchers from universities
in Japan have recommended that the communities are not
suffering any difficulties when they are unable to hunt
whales and so the quotas being requested were unnecessary.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states party to
the IWC to reiterate its position to proposals for new types
of whaling. It believed that any new category of whaling
operation would essentially be commercial whaling and
accordingly would undermine the current moratorium.
Cyprus also raised serious doubts about the potential impact
on whale populations and the lack of defined and genuine
subsistence needs of coastal communities.
37
Ecuador expressed its concern over the proposal described

by IWC/64/9 to side step the work of the Commission and
especially the moratorium. It said that proposal could not
be justified based on cultural factors but instead reflected a
clear interest in commercial whaling. Ecuador felt that the
collective interests of the Commission should be promoted
and that these included restoration of the stock of minke
whales.
Argentina repeated its full support for the moratorium
and highlighted that scientific researchers who were studying
the stock structure of the minke whale in the North Pacific
have not yet been able to determine whether this is a single
stock or whether there are two or more stocks and that there
were three different hypothesis under discussion. Therefore,
before the IWC could permit any type of catch it should have
the report of the Scientific Committee on the implications
that this type of hunting could have. On a separate matter,
Argentina referred to a report by the Cetacean Research
Institute indicating that of the 1,200 tons of whale meat
hunted in the northwest Pacific over 75% remained unsold
even though it had been offered to the market. In light of
this, Argentina asked why it was necessary to permit coastal
whaling.
Colombia understood and respected peoples rights to
food security. Nevertheless it did not support the allocation
of a small-type coastal whaling quota because it did not
agree with practices for lethal use that would put an end
to the moratorium. Colombia was concerned that through
this proposal a loophole might be opened to re-establish
unregulated commercial whaling as occurs in the case of
scientific whaling under Article 8 of the Convention. Costa
Rica also stated that the proposal would open up commercial
whaling and re-iterated its support for the moratorium.
Chile stated it could not support the proposal partly
because the Scientific Committee had not finished its study
but also because the stock structures were uncertain, there
was a high level of lethal bycatch and there were concerns
over scientific whaling. Chile considered that an exception
to the moratorium would mean lifting the moratorium on
commercial whaling. Moreover, in the light of the Scientific
Committees recent discussions on the levels of radioactivity
found in whales and small cetaceans, Chile called on the
Government of Japan to avoid any consumption of this type
of meat. Brazil considered that the proposal was an exception
to the moratorium and represented commercial whaling,
which it could not accept for the reasons given above.
The Chair then closed the speakers list because of
time constraints with several Contracting Governments
still waiting to speak. In doing so he apologised to those
Governments and also to the speaker from the IWMC World
Conservation Trust who would not be called upon to speak
as not all member countries had been able to take the floor.
Japan thanked the countries who had expressed support and
stated that although it had expected opposition to the proposal
it also considered that small-type coastal whaling had much
in common with aboriginal subsistence whaling which the
Commission had already supported. Japan requested that
this agenda Item remain open to allow it to consult with
other Contracting Governments on how to move forwards.
Upon continuing this Item later in the meeting, Japan
confirmed that it had decided not to request a vote on the
proposal contained in IWC/64/9 as it preferred to work
through constructive dialogue leading to a consensus
decision. Nonetheless, Japan stated that controversial
issues need solutions and accordingly it proposed to form
a small adhoc working group to serve as a forum to gain
38
the cooperation of members to resolve the small-type coastal

whaling issues. The terms of reference of this group would
be in line with Resolution 2004-2 which was adopted by
consensus. The working group would identify the unresolved
problems and priorities through discussion with relevant
parties and the progress would be reported to the next
Commission meeting. The group would be supported by the
Secretariat and its membership would be composed of five
or six countries with interests in Japans small-type coastal
whaling. Japan asked for endorsement of this proposal.
Australia supported by Ecuador and Cyprus indicated that
its understanding of the Rules of Procedure was that a new
document such as IWC/64/17 could only be considered if
there was consensus to do so. Given there was no consensus
and the document did not meet the 100 day circulation
rule for draft Resolutions, these countries considered the
document should not be discussed.
St Kitts and Nevis said there were significant merits in
Japan seeking redress for the issues faced by its traditional
coastal whalers especially with regards to Resolutions that
had previously been adopted by the Commission. It said it
was unfortunate that there was reluctance to discuss Japans
proposal and highlighted that five years ago there was a
strong possibility that the IWC may have met its demise
and another regional organisation would have taken over its
role. St Kitts and Nevis considered that the same situation
was now occurring again and urged that Japan be allowed to
keep the issue on the table.
Japan responded to the question of the need for prior
circulation by referring to Rule J and highlighting that this
rule referred to Schedule amendments, recommendations
under Article VI and Resolutions. It said that IWC/64/17
was a proposal to establish a working group and was not a
Resolution or Schedule amendment, and as such it was not
necessary to have consensus. However Japans basic stance
of pursing constructive dialogue remained and that was the
reason for requesting consensus agreement. It recognised
there was no agreement to establish the small adhoc group
at this meeting so it did not ask to continue discussion on
this subject at IWC/64.
However, Japan observed that the purpose of the ICRW
was to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks
and thus make possible the orderly development of the
whaling industry so as to realise the sustainable use of
whale resources. Japan noted that the Commission had
never denied the commerciality of whaling in itself. In this
connection, it further noted that the commercial whaling
moratorium was intended not to impose a permanent ban on
commercial whaling but to provide a temporal suspension
within a limited time period so that the Commission could
obtain scientific data which was deemed insufficient when
the moratorium was adopted.
Emphasising that Japans small-type coastal whaling
had similar characteristics to those of aboriginal subsistence
whaling, Japan stated its great regret that the two issues
had not been treated equally but instead were based on a
double standard, as was also shown in the denial of Japans
proposal to establish an adhoc small working group to seek
options for resolving matters related to small-type coastal
whaling.
Japan explained that there had recently been increasing
domestic pressure on the Government in Japan which
included the voices of Japanese citizens as well as politicians
that the Government should fundamentally review its
approach to the IWC and that it should seriously reconsider
its range of possible options such as withdrawal from the
ICRW, establishment of a new organisation, and resumption

of small-type costal whaling.
Japan concluded by stating it hoped to resolve the matter
of small-type coastal whaling at the next Commission
meeting. It intended to present a new proposal concerning
this issue to the next Commission meeting after consultation
with the member countries who share interests with Japan.
13. REVISED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
(RMP)
13.1.1 General issues25
The main focus on this section was on the priority items
presented to the Commission last year. The first item has
been examined for some time. It relates to the plausible range
of maximum sustainable yield rates, MSYR. This is used in
the testing of the RMP. MSYR relates to the productivity
of the stocks. The present range of values is from 1-7%
of the mature component of the population. The issue of
productivity is important to general issues of conservation
and management and not just the RMP.
The objective of the MSYR review is to examine
whether new information and data suggest that the existing
range needs to be changed. A work plan has been agreed that
should result in completion of the review at next meeting.
Since two other items on the agenda depend upon the
completion of this work, it has also been agreed that in the
event that the expected analyses are not completed by next
meeting, then the existing range will continue to be used.
A number of Committee agenda items under this topic
are of a technical nature. Here, focus will be made on the
remaining item that is of general relevance and this relates
to abundance estimates. This topic is not only important
to RMP discussions but also to the Committees work on
assessing any stocks.
The Committee has developed requirements and
guidelines for conducting abundance surveys and for
analysing these types of data, where the goal is to obtain
acceptable abundance estimates. The guidelines have been
periodically reviewed in the light of new developments and
the Scientific Committee feels it is important to question
whether guidelines related to the newer spatial modelling
approaches should be included. Further examination has
also been given to some of the requirements and guidelines
for the traditional design-based approaches to make them
clearer. To assist this process it has been recommended that
a review should be available at next years meeting.
13.1.2 Implementation process26
The Implementation and Implementation Review
process follows requirements and guidelines developed
by the Committee and approved by the Commission.
Implementations and Implementation Reviews provide
a robust framework for determining safe levels of
anthropogenic removals (e.g. whaling, ship strikes,
and incidental deaths in fishing gear) in the light of the
Commissions conservation objectives and user objectives
for commercial whaling. In general, the purpose of an
Implementation Review is to examine new information
to ensure that the extensive simulation testing which was
undertaken during the original Implementation still remains
For a full account see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 5
[2013].
26
[2013].
25
adequate to make sure that the conservation objectives of the

Commission are being met. The focus was again on priority
items presented to the Commission last year.
13.1.2.1 Western North Pacific Brydes whales
The first issue addressed was the timing of the Implementation

Review for western North Pacific Brydes whales. Normally
these are scheduled to occur every six years. However, for
logistical reasons the Committee has recommended that the
review be delayed until 2016.
13.1.2.2 Central North Atlantic fin whales
Given the new information received by the Committee

this year, it recommended that the North Atlantic fin whale
Implementation Review be brought forward one year and
take place next year.
13.1.2.3 North Atlantic common minke whales
Discussions continued on preparations for the 2014

Implementation Review for North Atlantic common minke
whales. The Committee agreed to a work plan to ensure
that the required data and analyses will be available for the
review. This includes a joint Workshop with the AWMP after
the next Annual Meeting.
13.1.2.4 Western North Pacific common minke whales
Due to the complexity of the situation, this Implementation

Review has taken longer than expected. The complexity of
the situation is mainly due to the nature of the stock structure
hypotheses and the fact that the hunts are carried out during
their migration. Despite these complexities, the work this
year at both the intersessional Workshop and at the Annual
Meeting means that completion of the Implementation
Review at next years meeting is possible.
The efforts of last year focused on ensuring that the
computer models that are used to test the various proposed
hypotheses are able to mimic the proposed hypotheses and
fit the available data. This process is known as conditioning
and it was agreed that this has been successfully completed.
Consideration was then given to the simulation trials that
are to be used in the review stage. These trials are developed
to ensure that the range of scientific uncertainty is fully tested
and plausibility was then given to these trials. Plausibility
plays a role in the review of the results, to make sure that the
advice given is in accord with the Commissions conservation
objectives. The Committee spent a considerable amount of
time on this. Medium plausibility has been given to trials
using all of the different stock structure hypotheses that were
proposed. This is because consensus could not be reached
over assigning any of them low plausibility.
To examine future conservation performance, the
Committee has to model information from potential
removals including potential whaling operations and
bycatches, and information from potential survey plans. As
reported last year, two governments presented information
on potential whaling operations Japan and Korea.
These are incorporated into what are called management
variants. The Committees advice is provided based on the
conservation performance of these management variants.
Next year, after reviewing the results of the simulation
trials, the Committee will advise, which, if any, of these
management variants meet the Commissions conservation
objectives.
13.1.2.5 North Atlantic sei whales
The Committee reconsidered an outstanding request from

Iceland for the Committee to evaluate the information
available on North Atlantic sei whales to see if these data
were sufficient to be considered a candidate for a future
39
pre-Implementation assessment. It is the Commissions

responsibility to decide whether a request for an
Implementation by a Government should go ahead. The
Committee established an intersessional group to review
the available information to see if it meets the Requirements
and Guidelines for Implementations and Implementation
Reviews. If the Committee agrees that the data do meet these
requirements, then the Committee will ask the Commission
for advice on whether or not the Scientific Committee should
begin the Implementation process.
13.1.3 Bycatch27
The Scientific Committee addresses the issues of bycatch and
ship strikes for a number of conservation and management
reasons. These include the fact that under the RMP,
recommended catch limits must take into account estimates
of mortality due to human factors. In addition, such mortality
can lead to conservation problems for populations other than
those for which the RMP might be considered. Ship strikes
are also discussed by the Commissions Conservation
Committee and entanglement issues are also discussed by
the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Animal
Welfare Issues. The Committee encouraged further activities
that can help quantify mortality related to marine debris.
The Committee has been co-operating with FAO on
bycatch and fisheries information. All bycatch information
received by the IWC has been submitted to FAO. The
Committee requests the Secretariat to contact the FIRMS
collaborative partnership under FAO to see if it is still
collecting fishery effort in a manner that will assist the
Committee in estimating bycatch.
The Committee received papers on long-term records
of bycatches off South Africa and off western Canada.
Amongst other valuable information these papers confirmed
the relationship between population size and density and the
amount of fishing effort with respect to bycatch rates. The
Committee recommended the continuation of such studies
where they exist and the initiation of such studies where they
do not.
With respect to estimating risks and rates of entanglement,
the Committee was pleased to hear that the recent capacity
building efforts in entanglement response under the auspices
of the IWC that took place in Argentina had stimulated an
analysis of southern right whale entanglement data.
The Committee welcomed the report of the second
IWC Workshop on Welfare Issues related to Large Whale
Entanglement and endorsed its recommendations, including
the proposed expert group and the establishment of a
entanglement database. This is discussed further under Item
11 above.
The Committees discussions on ship strikes were
initially reported to the Conservation Committee. Those
discussions can be found under Item 8.2 above.
The USA supported by Mexico and Australia drew the
Commissions attention to document IWC/63/15 which
contained information on RMP catch limits calculated by
the IWCs Scientific Committee. The current fin whale
quota, which had been unilaterally approved by Iceland,
was as much as three times higher than the potential
sustainable limit calculated by the Scientific Committee. It
also considered that at this time a sei whale Implementation
Review was not a priority. Iceland responded that the fin
[2013].
27
40
whale Implementation had been on-going for some years

and the quotas issued by Iceland were based on variant
two which was one of the variants acceptable with research
under the terms of the RMP. The catch limits had also
been discussed under NAMMCOs Scientific Committee
which concluded that the catch levels were sustainable and
precautionary. Iceland felt that this was also supported by
the work of the IWCs Scientific Committee. The United
Kingdom supported the USAs comments and noted that the
catch limit of 150 was still 1.7 times higher than would be
allowed under the RMP even if the less conservative variant
was considered acceptable.
Without compromising the moratorium on the killing of
whales, India supported the Revised Management Scheme
which contains strong safeguards for the conservation of
whales along with a robust compliance mechanism and an
assurance on the implementation of the catch limits and
other rules of the Commission. In this regard India was
concerned at reports that some countries were not adhering
to the RMP as agreed by the IWC and it asked Norway if
it was at risk of exceeding its own quota this year in some
of the zones where whaling takes place. Norway responded
that it was about halfway through its current catch season
and that catch levels were below those of the previous few
years because of weather conditions. It confirmed it would
report details of the catch both next year and especially
during the Implementation Review planned for 2014. There
were no indications that numbers were being taken above
the quotas calculated through use of the RMP.
During this Agenda Item the Government of the Republic
of Korea announced plans to conduct special permit scientific
whaling so as to improve the availability of data regarding
the stock structure and abundance estimates of minke
whales in Korean waters in relation to the Implementation
Review of the western North Pacific minke whales. This
announcement by the Government of the Republic of Korea
and the associated Commission discussions are reported
under Agenda Item 14.2 below dealing with new Scientific
Permits.
The Commission noted the report of the Scientific
Committee on this item and endorsed its recommendations.
14. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS
The Chair confirmed that since IWC/63 in 2011 Japan had
issued permits for taking minke, fin and humpback whales
in the Antarctic through its JARPA II programme and for
taking minke, Brydes, sei and sperm whales in the North
Pacific through its JARPN II programme. Japan had agreed
to continue suspending the take of humpback whales through
its Antarctic research programme in the 2011/12 season so
long as progress was being made in discussions on the future
of the IWC.
14.1 Report of the Scientific Committee28
14.1.1 Review of results from existing permits
The Committee had developed and the Commission
approved a process for full regular review of individual
special permit programmes under a process known as
Annex P. For long-term programmes the review occurs
around every six years. As part of that process there is a
specialist intersessional workshop whose report, along with
28
[2013].
the Scientific Committees review of it, is made available to

the Commission. The first time that process was used was
in 2009 for the 6-year review of results from the JARPN
II programme. Following the experience gained during that
review the Committee has developed improvements and
clarifications to the process as discussed under Item 14.1.3
below.
In between these detailed regular reviews the Committee
has agreed to receive only short annual reports on activities
under the programmes at Annual Meetings with only brief
discussions, leaving the major consideration to occur under
the Annex P process. It is important to note therefore that
the lack of comments in the Committees report does not
imply its support or disagreement with these programmes.
The Committee is preparing for a full review of the results
of the now completed Icelandic research permit on common
minke whales. The specialist intersessional Workshop will
be held during February/March of 2013 and the Scientific
Committee will discuss the specialist Workshop report
during its 2013 meeting.
The first 6-year review of JARPA II is also now due.
However, undertaking two reviews in parallel is logistically
difficult and the Committee proposes that the Annex P
process for JARPA II should begin after the 2013 Scientific
Committee meeting. This would result in an intersessional
specialist workshop during spring 2014 and the Committees
discussion of this will therefore occur at the 2014 meeting of
the Scientific Committee.
14.1.2 Review of new or continuing proposals
Japan reported that there was no plan to change either of the
existing JARPA II or JARPN II programmes and no new
proposals were presented.
14.1.3 Procedures for reviewing scientific permit proposals
As noted under Item 14.1.1, the Committee has been
reviewing how the Annex P process had worked when it
was first used for the JARPN II review in 2009. Last year
the Committee agreed additional guidelines to clarify the
admittance of Scientific Committee observers who will now
have the same admittance rights as proponents of the Permit,
and further guidance to ensure that the Panel member
selection process will facilitate a full, fair, independent,
balanced and objective review.
This year, again by consensus, the Committee clarified
the interactions between its Data Availability Agreement
rules, timetables for data availability, and the Annex P
process. The full text can be seen in Annex P3 of the Report
of the Scientific Committee29. In summary, this clarifies that
descriptions of the available data must be provided to the
Committee at the Annual Meeting prior to the intersessional
expert Workshop, while the data themselves shall be
available in electronic format one month after that meeting.
Applications to use the data must be via the Committees
Data Availability Group and the timings of the submission
and receipt of data are clarified, as is what is meant by
collaboration and offers of co-authorship.
Given this agreement was only made at the present
meeting, it was agreed that the proponents for the forthcoming
final review Workshop of the Icelandic programme will
not have to follow the new timeline strictly but they have
indicated that the data should be available by the end of
September 2012.
See J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14 [2013].
29

14.2.1 Discussion on review of existing permits
Japan noted that many scientific articles had been issued
based upon the outcomes of its special permit programmes
including 380 general articles and 170 journal articles (see
paper IWC/62/20). Japan had also provided the data from
its programs to the IWCs Scientific Committee and this had
been received, referenced and recognised in the Committees
report. Japan emphasised that lethal special permit research
was essential to answer particular questions, for example
data on age composition and population dynamics. It urged
the Commission to base its discussions on scientific factual
evidence.
Norway, supported by Grenada, said that there could be
no doubt that the Japanese research programmes, JARPA,
JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II had given and continued to
give valuable information on a number of scientific questions
including for example data on condition, age and stomach
contents of minke whales, and on general questions about
changes in the ecosystem of the Southern Ocean. Norway
stated that some of these questions could not be investigated
by the currently available non-lethal methods.
Iceland, supported by Grenada, recalled the long
conversations on the utility of scientific permit research
and concurred with the views expressed by Norway and
Japan about the usefulness of the results obtained in
the Scientific Committee based upon the special permit
programmes. Iceland noted that a relatively small special
permit programme comprising about 230 fin whales and
70 sei whales conducted by Iceland from 1986-89 led to
the publication of over 150 articles and scientific reports.
Accordingly, Iceland strongly disagreed with views that
scientific permit proposals have not produced any useful
results.
Australia stated its view that there was no reason to
kill whales in the name of science and that all necessary
information for the proper and effective conservation and
management of whales could be obtained by non-lethal
means. It said that the special permit programmes conducted
by the Government of Japan, namely JARPN, JARPN
II, JARPA and JARPA II and the programme previously
conducted by the Government of Iceland had produced no
agreed or substantiated research outcomes relevant to the
work of the IWC and were unnecessary for the conservation
and management of whales. This was all the more serious
due to the potential impact of the open ended and generally
expanding programs and their impacts on the status of some
populations of whales. Australia referenced the discussions
in the previous Scientific Committee reports which
highlighted the many substantial, general, and specific
objections to the purpose and operation of special permit
whaling programmes and the lack of any genuine response
to the scientific review processes. Australia believed it was
an appropriate time for all Contracting Governments to
combine their research efforts under carefully designed nonlethal programmes such as the Southern Ocean Research
Partnership (SORP).
Australia went on to state that there was a solid scientific
basis for the criticism that it and many other countries had
offered on the utility of the data from lethal special permit
research. There was no information and no science that is
required and is useful for the conservation and management
of whales that cannot be delivered through non-lethal
techniques. Whilst there was a debate in the Scientific
Committee over some current data the Committee had not
41
been able to conclude any useful conclusions from that

data and most of the discussion revolved around details of
the analysis and flaws in the way the data were collected.
Australia said that its scientific criticism of the special
permit programs went well beyond any political, or ethical,
or welfare issues. Norway responded to Australia and said
that Article VIII did not relate only to information relevant
to the management of whaling and whales; instead Article
VIII included all relevant science. Noting the publication of
results in the scientific literature, Norway said that valuable
scientific information was being generated by both the
JARPA and JARPN programmes.
New Zealand opposed Scientific Permit whaling under
Article VIII as it believed that modern science techniques
could increase understanding and conservation of whales
without killing them. New Zealand took particular exception
to whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Japans
two scientific whaling programmes in the Antarctic and in the
northwest Pacific had not, in New Zealands view contributed
meaningfully to species management or conservation. New
Zealand fully supported and collaborated in the Southern
Ocean research project undertaking successful non-lethal
whale research within the Southern Ocean.
Mexico stated that the JARPA and JARPN programmes
and all of their derivatives had contributed little to science
and have done very little to improve the stocks of whales.
Mexico drew attention to the errors in the programmes and
stated that the results had not been encouraging in relation
to the many years over which whales had been killed. For
example natural mortality had been estimated at 0.04 with
confidence levels so broad that it was impossible to say
whether any increase or change had been experienced by
the population and so the matter remained unknown. Thus
the central objectives of the programme had not been met.
Monaco noted the publications which had been generated
by the special permit programmes and reflected on the merits
of individual papers. It questioned whether the scientific
papers had affected knowledge and paradigms on cetacean
science, and it asked why it was necessary to kill cetaceans
for research when so many other study opportunities were
available through bycatch and stranding events.
The Global Guardian Trust (GGT) said that as a
conservation body its purpose was to promote the sustainable
use of natural resources and to use the best available
scientific information as the basis for conserving all living
natural resources. Article VIII of the ICRW was critical
to the proper operation of the IWC and the Chair of the
Scientific Committee had reported that the scientific permit
whaling had provided important information. Hundreds
of scientific papers had been produced and peer reviewed.
Some people took the view that this type of information
was not of any interest to them and therefore that scientists
should not undertake the research. But just as in the context
of indigenous whaling, the preferences of some should not
be allowed to subvert the activities of others. Understanding
the biology of whale populations was one of many areas of
scientific research. Research should take place when there is
an identified need, not when there is a global consensus that
it should be carried out. There was a need to understand the
biological status of whale populations in order to be able to
establish appropriate management mechanisms in the future.
GGT asked delegates to recognise that scientific permit
whaling had produced useful information that had a clear
application in the future management of whale stocks and
the sustainable use and conservation of whales.
42
14.2.2 Discussion regarding new proposals
Plans by the Government of the Republic of Korea

to conduct special permit scientific whaling
The Republic of Korea stated that it was considering

conducting whaling for scientific research in its waters
in accordance with Article VIII of the Convention30. The
Republic of Korea had a long history of whaling and
whale meat was still part of the dietary tradition in some
local areas such as Ulsan. However the long tradition of
coastal whaling was suspended in 1986 in compliance
with the IWCs decision and the Korean Government had
to scrap all whaling vessels, promising that whaling would
resume upon the recovery of resources. With this, Korean
fishermen had been waiting for the IWC to lift the ban for
more than 25 years. The Republic of Korea had respected
the moratorium since it entered into force in 1986. Whaling
was banned and subject to a strong punishment. The
moratorium put significant social and economic burdens
on people in some areas of Korea. Therefore, local people
had constantly requested the Government to allow limited
whaling. The local people said that minke whale populations
had recovered to the level maintained before the moratorium
and the increased numbers of whales were eating a huge
amount of commercial fish stocks which should be captured
by fishermen.
Since 2001 the Korean Government had been conducting
non-lethal sighting surveys to assess the state of the stock
and estimate the abundance of whales in the Korean waters.
However these surveys could not identify different whale
stocks and it was regretful that the survey results could not
support discussions within the Scientific Committee on the
number of whale stocks in Korean waters31. In addition,
sightings only surveys could not identify feeding habits
of marine mammals and contribute to understanding the
impacts of whale populations on fisheries resources as a
whole. Therefore the Korea Government had been forced to
consider conducting whaling for scientific research in order
to calm the complaints of Korean fishermen and to make up
for the weaker aspects of the non-lethal sighting survey.
The proposed scientific research programme would be
designed to analyse biological and ecological data on minke
whales migrating off the Korean Peninsula. The programme
would provide scientific information on stock structure using
genetic analysis as well as the nature of interactions with
fish stocks. The Korean Government said it was planning
to submit a detailed research plan to the next meeting of
the Scientific Committee and would take appropriate steps
to gain validity for the scientific whaling research through
relevant expert workshops. No decision had yet been made
regarding the number of minke whales to be taken, the
research period or the research area. However, the research
would be done within the national jurisdiction of the
Republic of Korea. It hoped that its research plan would be
See also the Republic of Koreas Opening Statement; document IWC/64/
OS Korea, available at: http://www.iwcoffice.org/iwc64docs.
31
In an intervention under Agenda Item 13 the Republic of Korea referred to
the report of the Scientific Committee made at Agenda Item 13.1.2.4 which
announced that the Implementation Review of minke whale stocks in the
North West Pacific was scheduled for completion in 2013. The Republic
of Korea noted that there several controversial points on the stock structure
and population estimates of minke whales in Korean waters and highlighted
its concern that the limited information on biological parameters may make
it difficult to distinguish the stocks. Therefore the Government of the
Republic of Korea said it was planning to conduct scientific whaling to
improve the data availability and to elaborate on the existing information
on stock structure and abundance estimation. Korea hoped that the working
group would finalise the RMP Implementation Review on the basis of
sufficient scientific data and evidence.
30
given the highest consideration at the next meeting of the

Scientific Committee so as to take into account the severe
difficulties of Korean fishermen as well as the scientific
justifications to conduct this research.
St Kitts and Nevis respected the right of all Contracting
Governments to engage in scientific research under special
permits and urged other members to do the same. It said
that the IWC had benefitted from research results that had
been obtained under special permits in the past and it viewed
this type of research as valuable and critical. St Vincent and
The Grenadines and Grenada recognised scientific permit
whaling and respected the rights of states to conduct research
under the Article VIII of the Convention. It believed that
scientific research was fundamental to the management of
marine resources and it endorsed research proposals which
followed the stipulated guidelines under Article VIII.
Norway supported the right to scientific research
including the right to issue special permits under Article
VIII of the Convention. It highlighted the need to follow
and strictly adhere to scientific protocol when whales are
taken under special permits and recognised that valuable
knowledge on whales and ecosystems was undoubtedly
collected through this type of scientific activity.
The Russian Federation stated its general support for
scientific research. It said that the scientific results from
the Japanese research programmes were interesting for
understanding the situation with the whales and their habitats
in Antarctica.
Mexico, the USA, Colombia, Australia, Argentina,
Panama, Ecuador, Germany, Monaco, the United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Switzerland, Cyprus on behalf of EU member
states party to the IWC, India, Chile, South Africa and
Brazil all expressed their concern at the announcement by
the Republic of Korea. Denmark expressed its wish not to
participate in discussions on scientific whaling.
Mexico stated that the announcement by Korea was
worrying and would bring greater pressure on the J-stock
especially in regards to the number of entangled individuals.
Mexico commented that the objectives of the JARPN
programmes had not yet been met and that this second
research effort would very likely reach the same result as the
Japanese programme.
The USA continued to oppose lethal scientific research
whaling programs and believed the scientific data needed to
improve management and promote recovery of large whale
populations could be collected through non-lethal means. It
said that lethal scientific whale research, although allowed
under Article VIII of the ICRW, was unnecessary for
modern whale conservation management. It encouraged the
Government of Korea to follow Annex P which required
submission of information six months prior to the Scientific
Committee meeting at which it was to be considered. The
USA also understood that takes of minke whales in this area
would be composed 100% of J-stock animals which would
be of considerable concern to the IWC.
Australia reiterated its view that there was no reason
to kill whales in the name of science and that all necessary
information for the effective conservation and management
of whales could be obtained by non-lethal means. It invited
the Republic of Koreas scientists to visit the Australian
Marine Mammal Centre in Hobart so as to discuss the use
of non-lethal techniques to help solve some of the data
shortages.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states party
to the IWC to indicate its strong regret that the Republic
of Korea was considering undertaking whaling for scientific
purposes. It noted that the impact of whaling on the North

Pacific minke whales was being evaluated by the Scientific
Committee and that the impact on the endangered J-stock
must be considered carefully so as to avoid catches on this
stock. It noted that the minke whale population of the North
Pacific was already subject to very high levels of bycatch.
Given the unknown effects of taking any numbers in the
area concerned precaution should prevail. Cyprus stated
its disagreement with the conclusion set out in the opening
statement of the Republic of Korea, and highlighted its
disagreement with the sentence which read minke whales
are eating away large amount of fish stocks which should be
consumed by human beings.
Germany reported that there was a broad consensus in
the German parliament across all political parties to stop
scientific whaling as soon as possible. Germany believed
that non-lethal research was the correct approach to improve
knowledge of whales. All activities in this field should be
continuously enhanced and promoted in contrast to scientific
whaling which did not have an added value regarding
knowledge on whales. Germany was also deeply concerned
that scientific whaling would open the door to commercial
whaling.
Monaco asserted that scientific whaling was an obsolete
legacy of a Convention drafted 60 years ago. Since that time
cetacean science had moved on and given the enormous body
of scientific literature and other non-lethal ways of studying
cetacean ecology there was no reason to kill cetaceans on
the pretext of science. Monaco noted that Asian science in
particular was progressing well and that there was no doubt
that scientists from Korea could take advantage of the nonlethal techniques and enormous body of scientific papers on
this subject.
The United Kingdom considered Special Permit whaling
programs to be unnecessary and of questionable value
scientifically. There were perfectly adequate non-lethal
alternatives which could secure the information required by
the IWC for stock assessment and management purposes.
The UK noted that the impact of whaling on the North Pacific
minke whales is currently being evaluated by the Scientific
Committee and the need to avoid catching whales from the
endangered J-stock would need to be looked at carefully so
as to avoid depletion.
Japan responded to the United Kingdom intervention
by drawing attention to the Report of the Scientific
Committee32 which listed the catch data obtained through
the special permit catch as having been received by the IWC
and thus were therefore scientific data. Japan also noted
that the Scientific Committee had agreed that the available
information was sufficient to warrant an Implementation
Review.
New Zealand noted that the Scientific Committee had
already undertaken a considerable amount of work through
its Implementation Review on North Pacific minke whales
around Japan and Korea. Extensive research and analysis
covering issues related to stock structure and abundance
estimates had already been completed on the minke whales
on which Korea was proposing to undertake lethal research.
The J-stock minke whales in this area are seriously depleted
and New Zealand strongly believed that lethal scientific
whaling on this stock was unnecessary. New Zealand was
strongly opposed to the Republic of Koreas proposal.
Switzerland recognised the rights of Contracting Governments to undertake whaling through special permits.
32
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14 [2013].
43
However it urged all Contracting Governments to redesign

scientific whaling programmes and abstain whenever
possible from lethal research.
Indias position was in favour of the moratorium and it
expressed concern about the large number of whales being
killed for scientific research. Research methods should be
developed to reduce the killing of whales for research. While
not compromising the moratorium, the countries concerned
should issue scientific permits on a minimum needs basis
which included a comprehensive evaluation of the objectives
of such research and appraisal of the performance of such
permits.
Chile stated that scientific research programs were not
necessary for whale conservation and management nor were
they relevant to the Commissions endeavours. Regarding the
Republic of Koreas request, Chile believed that the largest
bycatch of whales occurred in that country and therefore
no scientific research programs should be necessary as
those individuals should be used for study purposes. Chile
expressed its rejection of the years of legal excuses which
had allowed undercover lethal research to be carried out in
the Southern Ocean.
South Africa recognised that science had made many
advances since the Convention was created in 1946.
With many new non-lethal methods to obtain data there
was no longer any need to kill animals. South Africa did
not support any lethal scientific whaling and respectfully
asked the Republic of Korea to reconsider its plans to start
lethal scientific whaling and rather explore other non-lethal
methods to obtain the necessary scientific data.
Brazil commented that other non-lethal methods were
available to research cetacean populations and therefore it
had strong objections to those countries that continued to use
lethal methods. Accordingly it encouraged other countries,
including Korea, not to undertake or start to undertake lethal
research.
The Republic of Korea acknowledged the comments
regarding its proposed plan for scientific whaling and said
that it was under no obligation to inform the Commission
in advance of any plan. However it said that it was under
obligation to submit the relevant papers six months before
the Annual Meeting and confirmed that it was prepared to
do this in a spirit of trust and transparency as a responsible
member of the Commission. It did not accept any proposition
that whales should not be killed or caught. The IWC was
not a forum of moral debate and instead was a forum of
legal debate. Accordingly Korea requested that discussions
should focus on legal arguments.
14.2.3 Discussions on procedures for reviewing Scientific
Permit proposals
Chile expressed its concern about the Scientific Committees
permit review process which was delegated to a small,
closed group of experts as this led to the Committee as a
whole being unable to examine in detail the results of
the programmes. This in turn led to very little discussion
within the Committee. Chile believed that the permits
should be examined at the Committee level given it is the
body responsible for the management and review of special
permits. Monaco supported Chiles comments and asked for
improvements in the Scientific Committees reporting of its
discussions on special permits. It noted that there was often
no consensus within the Committee on matters related to
special permits but asked for the opposing arguments and
evidence to be presented to the Commission.
44
Costs of Special permit reviews33
Australia, supported by Mexico, Monaco, USA and the

United Kingdom highlighted the upcoming intersessional
Workshop to review Icelands special permit whaling
programme and the associated costs of 24,000 included
in the proposed research budget. Noting the Commissions
budgetary problems and the scaling back of the overall
Scientific Committee funding Australia strongly suggested
that there was no benefit in having the Workshop paid for
by the Commission and instead it proposed re-allocation
of those funds to areas which were not included in the
Committees budget. The USA understood that only about
200 minke whales were taken before Iceland commenced
its commercial whaling and therefore the examination of the
data could easily be folded into a future review. Accordingly
the USA recommended that the review of the data be delayed
until a future date.
Iceland opposed suggestions to postpone the review
of its special permit programme. It confirmed that the
programme operated from 2003-07 and that approximately
200 minke whales were taken. Iceland said the program was
justified and conducted according to the ICRW. It noted
that the Scientific Committee had proposed the review and
that the proposal had been adopted by the Commission.
Accordingly Iceland had been preparing for the independent
review during the forthcoming winter in accordance with
the Annex P process. It recognised that if the Commission
did decide to cancel the review then it would have to accept
the decision. However Iceland highlighted a wide range of
scientists had been involved in the programme and some of
these had been engaged on a temporary basis. If the review
was to be postponed or held at a location outside Iceland
many of the scientists would not be available. It also recalled
that when Iceland agreed to the review programme there
was a clear understanding that the costs would be paid by
the IWC.
Responding to Icelands comments, Australia said that
it was important that the special permit programme was
reviewed given the previous controversy and criticisms
which surrounded it. It clarified that it was the timing of the
review and who should fund it that was being questioned.
Norway supported Icelands wish for the review of
its research programme to be carried out according to the
original plans, and considered it to be a disregard of the
Scientific Committee if the review did not proceed.
Discussions on the future work plan of the Scientific
Committee and the review of the Icelandic special permit
programme were concluded under Item 19.4.2.
The Commission noted the report of the Scientific
Committee on this item and endorses its recommendations.
15. SAFETY issues at sea
This agenda Item was included at the request of the
Government of Japan who stated that since 2005 the vessels
conducting the JARPA II programme had experienced ongoing violent protests and acts of sabotage arising from the
actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. These
protest activities had included illegal boarding of ships,
collisions between vessels, use of improvised weapons and
efforts to entangle vessels propellers. Japan drew attention
to its efforts to resolve this issue through international
cooperation including the adoption of Resolutions and
statements criticising the Sea Shepherd Conservation
See also discussions under Item 19.4.2 on the Scientific Committees
proposed work programme.
33
Society by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

and by the IWC34. Japan stated that it had obtained arrest
warrants for five Sea Shepherd activists and had approached
governments who were either port or flag states for Sea
Shepherd vessels. However, despite these actions no
effective measures had been taken against Sea Shepherd
and Japan called for the implementation of other approaches
including the inspection of Sea Shepherd vessels, the
prohibition of departure of Sea Shepherd vessels from port,
the strengthening of monitoring of Sea Shepherd members
and access to information regarding any preferential
treatment including tax and subsidies.
Antigua and Barbuda emphasised the seriousness of
issues surrounding safety at sea and said that countries
who acted as flag or port states for Sea Shepherd vessels
had an additional responsibility to conduct themselves
in an acceptable manner. St Vincent and The Grenadines
supported by Tanzania highlighted the responsibility for the
protection of human life and said that the reality was that
neither flag nor port states would take action. St Kitts and
Nevis recorded its sympathies for the crew and scientists
of the research vessels and said that Sea Shepherd was
operating without fear of reprisals or sanctions from port or
flag states or the country where it was registered. It noted
that the Sea Shepherd actions had prevented the Southern
Ocean sighting surveys from taking place and anticipated
that the increased protest actions would ultimately lead to
lives being lost.
St Lucia, supported by Norway, Kiribati and the Russian
Federation stated that although the IMO was the primary
organisation to deal with safety at sea the matter should
also be addressed by the IWC because the data collection
work being undertaken by the IWC was being affected by
Sea Shepherds actions. St Lucia highlighted the seriousness
of the issue and stated that it must be dealt with to avoid
the possibility of fatalities in future years. Benin noted that
the question of safety was linked to the opportunity to carry
out research, and accordingly the solution to the problem lay
with the IWC. The Russian Federation called upon the IWC
and flag and port state countries to take measures to stop Sea
Shepherd operations.
Norway, supported by Iceland, expressed its support for
the Japanese seamen and scientists and expressed regret
that the research activities in the Southern Ocean could not
be carried out as planned because of the violent actions. It
called on states not to support the activists and to use the
legal means at their disposal to pursue them. It said that
passivity was indirect support, which was dangerous as it
undermined diplomatic attempts to handle the controversy.
Norway urged all parties including relevant flag and port
states to be clear in their message and in their actions to
prevent activities that put at risk human lives and property
at sea. It noted that in mid-May 2012 Paul Watson had been
arrested in Germany. At the time of this meeting he was
awaiting extradition to Costa Rica on charges of endangering
peoples lives by interfering with legal fisheries operations.
Guinea attached great value to the research conducted
under JARPA I and JARPA II and recalled that these
programmes showed that some whales fed exclusively on
See Resolution 2006-2 on the Safety of Vessels Engaged in Whaling
and Whale Research-related Activities (Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm.
2006:69 [2007]); Resolution 2007-2 on Safety at Sea and Protection of the
Marine Environment (Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2007:91 [2008]); the
statement issued by the Commission at its intersessional meeting in March
2008 and Resolution 2011-2 on Safety at Sea (Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling
Comm. 2011:60 [2012]).
34
pelagic species. Given that the peoples of some countries

were also consumers of small pelagic species, Guinea
attached great importance to the food security relationship
between fish and whales. Accordingly it condemned all
activities which jeopardised scientific research.
India endorsed the IWCs Resolutions on safety at sea
and shared Japans concerns. It was opposed to violent
protests at sea by any organisation but also recognised
the rights of an individual or organisation to express their
protests in a peaceful manner within the ambit of the law
of the land and international rules and regulations. Kiribati,
the Republic of Korea and Iceland supported the right to
legitimate and peaceful protest but expressed concern over
further escalation in the confrontations. They urged flag and
port states to take the necessary actions to discourage the
violent protests.
Australia stated that on matters associated with safety
at sea nothing less than full compliance with domestic and
international laws was acceptable. Australia had fulfilled
and would continue to fulfil all of its international legal
obligations arising from events in the Southern Ocean.
However its view was that the IMO was the appropriate forum
to address safety at sea matters, not the IWC. The Australian
Government respected the right to peaceful protest but did
not condone and had repeatedly condemned dangerous,
reckless or unlawful behaviour, including on the high seas.
In January 2012, Australias Prime Minister had made it
clear that the actions of the three Australian protestors who
boarded a Japanese vessel were unacceptable. In addition
Australia referred to the joint Ministerial statement on
Whaling and Safety at Sea released by the Foreign Ministers
of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the USA
on 14 December 2011 as a statement of its position on this
issue.
The Netherlands was firmly opposed to any type of
commercial or scientific whaling. It was disappointed and
concerned about the repeated activities of the Japanese
whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as it constituted
a violation of the Sanctuarys intent. There was no necessity
to kill whales for scientific purposes as there were sufficient
non-lethal research methods available. Japan had yet to
demonstrate such a need, and NGOs were therefore all the
more likely to continue to protest. It called on Japan to end
this practise. The Netherlands remained of the opinion that
safety at sea did not fit within the remit of the IWC as the
appropriate forum for any discussion in the field of maritime
safety was the IMO. The Netherlands remained committed
as a flag state and called upon the masters of all vessels to
strictly observe the IMOs international collision avoidance
regulations. It referred to the joint statement made with
the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the USA
published on the 14 December 2011 which underlined that
any unlawful activities should be dealt with in accordance
with the relevant international and domestic laws. The
Netherlands fully respected the right to protest peacefully,
including on the high seas, but deplored the incidents
between ships of the Japanese whaling fleet and the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society during the 2011/12 season.
The Netherlands remained particularly concerned about the
apparent escalation of violence in such incidents and had, on
a number of occasions, discussed these and related matters
bilaterally with Japanese representatives both in the Hague
and Tokyo with a view of better understanding each others
position.
New Zealand took issues of safety at sea seriously
and insisted that all persons operating on the high seas
comply with international standards of safe navigation,
45
particularly in the harsh conditions of the Southern Ocean.

New Zealand acknowledged its international obligations
and said that it would take and had taken appropriate action
where obligations required it to conduct investigations and
establish jurisdiction. This included the case where New
Zealands maritime authority carried out a full investigation
into the incident in the Southern Ocean that led to the sinking
of the New Zealand registered Ady Gil during the 2009/10
whaling season. That investigation found that the masters
of both vessels involved engaged in conduct that resulted
in the collision. New Zealand understood Japans concerns
about Sea Shepherds operation in the Southern Ocean and
had repeatedly called on Sea Shepherd vessels operating
there to act responsibly. It was very concerned that there
would be a serious incident leading to loss of life or serious
injury. Since the sinking of the Ady Gil New Zealand was
not a flag state to any Sea Shepherd vessel. It noted that the
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society had stated its intention
to return to the Southern Ocean to protest against Japans
special permit whaling for as long as Japan continued to
undertake whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. New
Zealand respected the rights of individuals and groups to
peaceful protest, including on the high seas, but it did not
condone violent protests that endangered life or property.
The USA stated that the safety of vessels and human life
at sea was its highest priority and it condemned acts that
intentionally jeopardised crew members lives or the safety
of vessels. It was deeply concerned that confrontations in
the Southern Ocean could lead to injury or loss of life of
the whaling crews and protesters. In 2010 and 2011, the
United States had joined Australia, the Netherlands and New
Zealand in calling for responsible behaviour in the Southern
Ocean and urged the masters of all vessels to observe
international collision avoidance regulations. The USA
continued to support the comprehensive set of instruments
at the IMO to promote, enhance and protect maritime safety.
Brazil, Chile and the Dominican Republic supported all
efforts to strengthen safety at sea. However, it noted that
the issue fell within the remit of the IMO which had the
appropriate instruments and mechanisms to deal with such
questions which were also related to the jurisdiction of flag
and port states. Brazil condemned any acts of violence at
sea, but at the same time supported the rights of individuals
and organisations to freely demonstrate. It regretted that
special permit whaling operations in the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary were at the origin of such incidents. Colombia,
Chile and the Dominican Republic condemned all violent
actions related to safety on the high seas but considered that
this issue had been addressed at IWC/63 in 201135 and stated
that the matter should now be referred to the IMO. The
Dominican Republic recommended that the Government of
Japan reconsider its scientific whaling as it was not worth
risking the lives of Japanese researchers in such a situation.
Japan thanked those delegations who expressed concern
and support. It drew attention both to Resolution 20112 which urged all Governments concerned to continue to
co-operate to prevent and supress actions that risk human
life and property at sea and to IMO Resolutions which
encouraged Governments to cooperate. Noting that the
2011-12 JARPA II scientific survey had been disrupted it
said that this was a serious loss of scientific knowledge for
the IWC as it represented the only dedicated cetacean data
in that region of the Southern Ocean. Japan repeated its call
for all governments to cooperate in taking action to address
Resolution 2011-2, see Ann. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 2011: 60 [2012].
35
46
the issue. Australia clarified that the information collected

through JARPA II was not the sole source of cetacean
information collected in that sector of the Southern Ocean
as substantial cetacean research was also conducted by the
USA, France, Australia, New Zealand and other nations.
Mr. Chikimasa Ohkoshi of the International Transport
Workers Federation (ITWF) said that it supported the
efficient use of whale resources when they were sustainably
available. It had carried out research in the Southern Ocean
over many years to provide the IWCs Scientific Committee
with valuable data, but Sea Shepherd had consistently put the
boats and lives of its crew members at risk. Such malicious
activities were condemned every year at the IWC, but again
this year Sea Shepherd had carried out sabotage acts. It
stressed that it was nothing but sheer luck that no one was
injured by persistent attacks. The ITWF asked that standards
for international seamanship be applied to Sea Shepherd.
Forcing others to change their opinions with violence was
not acceptable and was terrorism. It hoped that the flag
states of the anti-whaling vessels fulfilled their obligations
as members of the international community and also asked
any member state which allowed Sea Shepherd vessels to
call at their ports for refuelling to review whether they were
meeting their obligations. ITWF felt that such actions were
no different to supporting a terrorist group.
Mr Ohkoshi said that he was a gunner of a catcher boat
and had been engaged in the research whaling for nineteen
years. ITWFs members were working hard doing their job
and they had a right to do their work safely. On behalf of
all the fishing workers in the world, the ITFW protested
against violent campaign activities and requested that all
the IWC member countries take a firm attitude against Sea
Shepherds actions.
16. CATCHES BY NON-MEMBER NATIONS
Last year, the Secretariat contacted both Canada and
Indonesia to request information on recent catches. No
response came from Indonesia. Canada kindly responded
and provided catch information on the 2011 bowhead whale
catches which was considered by the Scientific Committee
under their agenda item 7.3.4.1. The Secretariat has been
requested to continue to ask for information on this issue.
The Observer from the Government of Canada confirmed that
it had submitted data to the Scientific Committee regarding
the 2011 Aboriginal Subsistence harvest of bowhead whales
by the Canadian Inuit. Canada was pleased to share this
information with the Committee and would continue to cooperate with the IWCs Scientific Committee in the future.
There were no further discussions under this Item and the
Commission noted the report of the Scientific Committee on
this item and endorsed its recommendations.
17. INFRACTIONS, 2011 SEASON
The Infractions Sub-committee met in Panama on 25 June
2012. Lars Walle (Norway) chaired the meeting which was
attended by 22 Contracting Governments. The full report of
the Sub-committee is available at Annex H.
A summary of catches by IWC member nations in the
2011 and 2011/12 seasons is provided at Annex I.
17.1 Report of the Infractions Sub-committee
The Chair of the Sub-committee referred to the infractions
reports received in 2011 which were tabulated in Appendix
3 of its report (see Annex H). The Chair described the Subcommittees discussions regarding the take of a bowhead
calf in September 2011 and also the follow up to earlier
infractions reports by Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Korea
and a 2009 infraction report by Norway involving the use
of a cold grenade harpoon. The Chair also reported on
surveillance of whaling operations, on information required
or requested under Section VI of the Schedule to the ICRW
(1946), and on submissions of national laws and regulations.
There were no discussions under this agenda Item. The
Commission noted the report of the Infractions Subcommittee and endorsed its recommendations.
18. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES
18.1 State of the Cetacean Environment (SOCER)
The SOCER report uses peer-reviewed literature to provide
an annual update on environmental matters that potentially
affect cetaceans. It is tailored for a non-scientific audience
and this year focused on the Indian Ocean. The primary
source of information was the International Indian Ocean
Cetacean Symposium, held in the Maldives in July 2009.
In general, the authors concluded that awareness of
environmental-related threats to cetaceans is high in this
region, although implementation and control measures are
not. Information is scant or absent in many areas with most
research focused in a few locations. There are fifteen new
peer-reviewed papers from this region in issue 12(2) of the
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management.
Next year the focus of SOCER will be the Atlantic
Ocean with an emphasis on papers published between 2011
and 2013.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states party to the
IWC to welcome the work undertaken through the SOCER
report, which provided a non-technical period summary
of the positive and negative events affecting conditions
in the marine environment. It noted that environmental
degradation from a number of sources had taken their toll
on the state of the marine environment and many of those
were of increasing conservation importance. It believed that
sound science was essential to enhancing the conservation
status of whales and stated its appreciation for the work of
the IWCs Scientific Committee.
18.2 POLLUTION 2000+ research programme
The IWCs POLLUTION 2000+ programme has been
one of the Scientific Committees successful international
collaborations. It is examining the complex and difficult
issue of the effect of chemical pollutants on cetaceans
and cetacean populations. Phase I of the programme
was completed in 2008. Phase II is focusing on trying to
examine population level effects. Its four objectives are to:
(1) improve the existing concentration-response function
for PCB-related reproductive effects in cetaceans, which
was largely completed in 2011; (2) integrate improved
[2013].
37
[2013].
36
concentration response components into a population risk

individually-based model for two case study species (the
bottlenose dolphin and the humpback whale), again largely
completed in 2011; (3) derive additional concentrationresponse functions to address other endpoints (e.g. survival,
fecundity) in relation to PCB exposure, which was discussed
this year; and (4) implement a concentration-response
component for at least one additional contaminant of
concern, which has not yet been completed.
This year, progress on the third objective was provided
from an IWC-funded project. This used a modelling
framework based on individual animals to examine how
possible effects of pollutants on the immune function of
individuals was reflected at the population level. In the
examples chosen, the focus was on the potential effects of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on breeding females from
bottlenose dolphin populations in Florida and Georgia. The
model prediction for Florida, which has low PCB levels, was
that they would remain stable or increase slightly over the
next 50-100 years. However, the population in Brunswick,
Georgia is predicted to decline over the same period. In this
area, PCB levels in breeding females are 10 times higher
than in Florida.
The Committee commended the authors for this work and
strongly supported their continued programme to develop
the necessary tools for analyses of pollutant exposure
risk to cetaceans. The programme will continue this year
and the Committee has provided additional advice to the
researchers. The Committee also strongly recommended
that the bottlenose dolphins in Brunswick, Georgia are
monitored given their extremely high PCB levels.
18.3 Cetacean diseases
18.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committees working group
on Cetacean Emerging and Resurging Diseases38.
The CERD (Cetacean Emerging and Resurging Diseases)
working group was formed in 2007 to increase research and
standardise reporting in a wide range of disciplines dealing
with the health of cetaceans. For example, a two-level
CERD component to the IWC website is being developed
with the help of the Secretariat. The first public level will
provide basic information on diseases in cetaceans, as well
as access to selected discussion forums. The second level
is for registered users and will include in-depth disease
information, as well as the ability to post and map locations
of disease incidents and to discuss events with professionals.
Standardised tissue collection protocols will also be included
on the website.
The Committee also received several interesting papers
on diseases in cetaceans this year: a paper on Morbillivirusinfested cetaceans that stranded in Italy between 2009 and
2011; a paper on organochloride contaminants (such as
DDT) which were high in gray whales calves from Mexico;
and a paper on the diseases and microorganisms that impact
cetacean strandings in Costa Rica during 2004-11, where
some cetacean diseases, such as Brucella, can also affect
humans.
The Committee welcomed these papers and recommended additional research be conducted on pathogens,
particular those like Brucella.
[2013].
38
47

The USA noted that 2012 marked the 20-year anniversary of
its Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.
This Program leads the investigation of unusual mortality
events which are declared in the USA when a stranding event
or disease outbreak is unexpected, involves a significant
die-off of any marine mammal species and demands an
immediate response. As of May 2012 the programme had
investigated 56 unusual mortality events in the USA with
four events currently under investigation from the past year.
Over the last several years the USAs collaborations with
its partners had documented new viruses, new bacterial
diseases and new fungal diseases in cetaceans in the wild.
Over the past year the program has investigated the role of
emerging infectious diseases on marine mammal health, the
transport of terrestrial pathogens to marine mammals, the
risks of animal to human and human to animal transmission
of shared pathogens and the emergence of pathogens in the
marine food web39.
the IWC to express concern about the health status of whales
and especially small cetaceans. New scientific information
showed that dolphins and whales were increasingly
suffering from skin diseases, bacterial and viral infections
which originated from a wide variety of pathogens. Cyprus
highlighted the increased involvement of European scientists
in the work of the CERD working group. It believed that the
IWC had a significant role to play in these areas of research
and said that further work was important, especially as it
is closely connected to other threats such as pollution, ship
strikes and entanglement.
18.4 The impacts of oil and dispersants on cetaceans
The Committee was provided with an update on the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that
started when a drilling platform collapsed in April 2010.
In particular it was informed of a number of major projects
being undertaken within the USA. The damage assessment
process included a wide range of techniques including
photo-identification, biopsy sampling, telemetry, live
capture health assessments and evaluation of stranding data
for common bottlenose dolphins in nearshore waters.
The Committee commended this research and strongly
recommended continued investigations into the impacts on
cetaceans of the oil and oil spill related contaminants, and to
continue the health assessments.
The Committee has previously referred to the important
issue of capacity building with respect to oil spills and
cetaceans. This year it received information on several
initiatives in this regard including a workshop at the 2nd
International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected
Areas. It is concerned about the potential problems of
oil spills in the Arctic and the Committee agreed that the
recommendations from that workshop41 will provide a useful
basis for discussions related to oil at the forthcoming Arctic
Anthropogenic Impacts Workshop (see Item 18.9).
The Programs findings were described in detail in the USAs voluntary
cetacean conservation report (IWC/64/CC5).
40
For a full account see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 12.2.2
[2013].
41
http://second.icmmpa.org.
39
48
18.5 Marine renewable energy developments and

cetaceans
The Committee held a Workshop on Marine Renewable
Energy Development (MRED) in Panama immediately prior
to this years Scientific Committee meeting (SC/64/Rep6).
MREDs include wind farms, tidal-stream driven devices
and wave energy converters. All are potential ways to
make energy and mitigate climate change, but all have the
potential for negative interactions with cetaceans during
their construction, operation and decommissioning. The
demand for this type of energy is increasing around the
world. The Workshop received reports on the current state of
development and management of MREDs in Europe and the
USA. Given the movements and migrations of cetaceans,
trans-boundary issues are an important consideration. The
Workshop developed, and the Committee endorsed, general
principles and a strategy to minimise environmental threats
posed by these developments. The Scientific Committee
can assist in implementing aspects of this including: (1)
assisting with international, collaborative research to
determine baseline basic information about cetaceans that
might be affected; (2) evaluating possible population impact
assessments, especially those using modelling approaches
that account for cumulative impacts from all sorts of threats;
(3) designing monitoring projects to assess potential impacts;
and (4) helping to promote data-sharing.
The Committee also reiterated its previous recommendations with respect to mitigation against noise which is also
relevant to energy developments (see Item 18.6).
Finally, the Committee was concerned to receive
information on the development of MREDs in Chilean
waters that are in critical cetacean habitat. It strongly
recommended urgent development of environmental impact
studies and noted the need for a precautionary approach.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of EU member states party to the
IWC and said that in the European Union marine renewable
developments and especially wind farms were increasing
rapidly. There were a number of research programmes to
monitor and mitigate the possible effects of such installations.
These effects included habitat alteration, entanglement,
collisions, contamination and the impacts of underwater
noise. However, in light of the potentially accumulative
effects arising from other anthropogenic threats there was
a strong need to develop alternative and quieter techniques
for the construction of wind farms to avoid underwater
noise. Moreover, comprehensive environmental assessment
must be conducted during the development of renewable
marine energy facilities and Cyprus was committed to work
cooperatively towards the mitigation of negative effects on
cetaceans.
18.6 Anthropogenic sound
The Committee has often considered the issues surrounding
the effects of noise on cetaceans. This year, the Committee
discussed a paper that proposed a way to assess these effects.
The first stage is to develop acoustic habitat maps integrating
sound from multiple sources and overlay these with habitat
maps of the spatial-temporal distribution and abundance of
[2013].
43
[2013].
42
cetaceans. This can then assist in identifying areas or periods

of concern and data gaps. This information can lead to the
development of precautionary measures to protect marine
mammals from potential impacts as well as prioritisation of
research to fill in the data gaps.
The Committee was pleased to receive information on
relevant US work, specifically the projects called CetSound
and CetMap (see below). It welcomed the development of
mapping tools and recommended further development and
improvements of the tools. It also welcomed the work being
undertaken by the IUCN Western Gray Whale Advisory
Panel and its Noise Task Force.
With respect to underwater noise from commercial
shipping, it was noted that the IMO is working on guidelines
related to noise from commercial ships; the Secretariat
participates on the relevant IMO working group.
The Committee was pleased to receive an update on
a major programme now known as PCoD (Population
Consequences of Disturbance). It is envisioned that in the
future, accumulative effects, behavioural responses and
other factors, such as acoustic masking that could potentially
affect health may be incorporated into the model. The
Committee strongly encouraged further work on this model
and looked forward to progress updates.
The USA highlighted the report by the Scientific Committee
which indicated that since 2011 it had been engaged in a
project to improve evaluation of the impacts of human
induced noise on cetaceans. As part of this project, the USA
had convened two data and product driven working groups;
the first one on underwater sound field mapping (CetSound)
and the second on cetacean density and distribution (CetMap).
The working groups completed their work in May 2012
and the USA held a symposium where their products were
presented to scientists, NGOs, industry, Federal Agencies
and local managers with a view to developing management
applications. The USA expected that the final products
and analysis would provide a biological and acoustic basis
to inform subsequent management decisions. The USA
supported the Scientific Committees recommendations for
further development of these tools and would continue to
address ocean noise issues. It also encouraged the IWC to
continue working with other international organisations,
particularly the IMO as it works to develop ship quietening
technology and reduce ocean noise. It further encouraged
the IWC to explore new partnerships to further this work
including potential collaboration with the Arctic Council.
Mexico, Australia, Argentina and South Africa congratulated
the USA on the development of CetSound and CetMap and
described them as spectacular and sophisticated mapping
packages which were incredibly useful for developing
practical mitigation measures. Australia and South Africa
indicated that they would like to collaborate intersessionally
with the USA on further development and use of the tools.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the European Union states
party to the IWC and said that during the last century noise
levels in the worlds oceans had increased significantly
as a result of multiple human activities. It said that the
effects of noise ranged from disturbance of communication
and group cohesion through to injury and mortality. It
supported the Scientific Committees work and especially
its recommendation to improve mapping tools to depict the
characteristics of both chronic and episodic underwater noise.
Cyprus welcomed continued discussions between the IMO
and the IWC regarding efforts to reduce the noise of newly
built vessels. It encouraged efforts to develop a modelling

tool to determine the population level consequences of
acoustic disturbance on marine mammals.
18.7 Climate change
The Committee has held two major Workshops on climate
change and one follow-up Workshop on small cetaceans.
The Committee welcomed an update of a study related
to the second climate change workshops theme regarding
single species-regional contrasts. This involved passive
acoustic sampling from two recorders in the Atlantic and
Pacific sectors of the High Arctic during 2008-09 and
revealed a seasonal difference in occurrence of bowhead
whales in the high Arctic. The Committee was also pleased
to receive information from a programme known as SOAR
(the Synthesis of Arctic Research) which, although not
focused on cetaceans, includes some projects involving
white whales and bowhead whales.
India said that it had researched the impacts of climate
change, including the impacts on marine mammals, as part
of its overall climate change assessment. While the efforts
to address climate change can be national and regional,
the causative factors are global and cannot be attributed
solely to developing countries. The actions and efforts to
understand the effects of climate change that are undertaken
by the developing countries must be supported financially
and technologically by the developed whaling nations.
18.8 Ecosystem modelling
This year, one of the Committees priority topics was a
review of ecosystem modelling undertaken outside the IWC.
It first considered a review on which types of ecosystem
models can best be used to address different types of
ecological questions. The review concluded that: (a) the
choice of model depends strongly on the questions being
asked; and (b) it is usually better to start with simple multispecies models with few components, then build up to more
complex models if needed. Finally, the more complex multispecies models, such as food-web models and whole-system
models are more suited to address broader questions.
The Committee then considered an analysis that
attempted to develop quantitative bounds on consumption
estimates for marine mammals. Parameter values were taken
from the literature and sensitivity and risk analyses were
undertaken to develop reasonable bounds on these parameter
values. This technique is particularly useful when it is not
possible to collect direct information on consumption from
the animals of interest.
The Committee welcomed these analyses. It noted that
consumption by marine mammals warrants inclusion as a
source of natural mortality in assessments of prey stocks.
It also noted the challenges involved in defining concepts
such as optimum sustainable production in a multispecies
context. Next year, the Committee will consider ecosystem
modelling and the effects on predators of fishing for forage
fish and simple models of whales and prey.
The Committee also considered three somewhat
conflicting papers on Antarctic minke whale body condition
[2013].
45
[2013].
44
49
that led to major discussions. This followed similar

discussions last year. One paper indicated there was a
statistically significant decline in mean blubber thickness of
Antarctic minke whales using data from JARPA. The second
indicated that the JARPA data showed unlikely trends and
much higher levels of variability in some parameters than
would be expected, thus casting doubts on the results of the
first study. The third paper used JARPA data from almost
two decades and indicated a decline in energy storage
in Antarctic minke whales which suggested that food
availability may have been declining recently. No consensus
view emerged and a number of analytical suggestions for
future analyses were made as well as suggestions related to
biological issues. The Committee looked forward to future
analyses of these data.
18.9 Proposal for a Workshop on Anthropogenic
Impacts to Cetaceans in the Arctic
In 2010 the Commission asked the Committee to develop
an agenda for a Workshop on Anthropogenic Impacts to
Cetaceans in the Arctic and in 2011 a draft agenda was
completed and a steering group formed to further develop
a plan for the workshop. This year a revised Agenda was
presented to the Committee that focused on anthropogenic
activities related to oil and gas exploration, commercial
shipping and tourism. Recognising the broad complex
nature of potential anthropogenic impacts to cetaceans in
the Arctic, the Committee suggested that other activities
such as commercial fishing and research could also be
considered. Given the extent and complexity of the topic,
the Committee recommended an initial scientific workshop
to be followed by a workshop that addresses management
and policy aspects related to Arctic anthropogenic impacts
on cetaceans. It is expected that final specifications for
the workshop will be developed by the workshop steering
group, other IWC representatives and the Secretariat.
The USA indicated that it was looking forward to the
workshop and said that it would work with interested member
Governments and members of the Scientific Committees
Environmental Concerns Working Group to help finalise
the Agenda. The USA planned to work by correspondence
over the next few months with a goal of holding the
workshop in early 2013. Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU
member states party to the IWC to express support for the
workshop and agreement with the Scientific Committees
recommendation that the workshop should address the full
range of anthropogenic threats faced by Arctic cetaceans.
18.10 Reports from Contracting Governments on
national and regional efforts to monitor and address
the impacts of environmental change on cetaceans and
other marine mammals
The United Kingdom welcomed all the efforts being made
to address cetacean environmental and health concerns.
It reiterated support for the moratorium and for the UKs
fundamental position against scientific whaling, now
or by countries who wish to go down that road in the
For a full account see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 12.5.3
[2013].
46
50
future. It welcomed the increasingly important work of

the Conservation Committee and countries continuing to
look for constructive ways to work together to address the
increasing threats to all cetaceans. In particular, the UK
followed with great interest the progress being made by the
IWC on welfare issues, including those associated with the
entanglement of large whales and marine debris, and also
the on-going work on whalewatching.
18.11 Health issues
Correspondence with the World Health

Organisation
The Secretariat drew attention to document IWC/63/9

which was submitted to IWC/63 in 2011 but not discussed.
It explained the steps taken by the Secretariat to reactivate
communication with the World Health Organisation
(WHO) following a Commission request made in 2010.
The information provided by the WHO showed that it had,
in 2006, reaffirmed a Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake
of 1.6g of methyl mercury per kg body weight to protect
consumers of fish and other seafood. St Kitts and Nevis
welcomed the Commissions intention of involving the
WHO in this issue and asked for equal treatment towards
the IMO on safety at sea. It believed that safety at sea
should become an IWC issue with advice being given from
IMO.
Resolution on the importance of continued
scientific research with regard to the impact
of the degradation of the marine environment
on the health of cetaceans and related human
health effects

the IWC and said that the health of the oceans and marine
biodiversity were negatively affected by a variety of marine
pollution from various sources. Over the past years there
had been mounting evidence of degradation of marine
biodiversity along with potential harm to ecosystem services
and functioning. In some places the increase in levels of
organic contaminants, heavy metals and pathogens had
taken its toll on the conservation status of cetaceans and
could, in specific cases, also entail effects on human health.
Cyprus noted that the IWC had already expressed concern
over environmental degradation and its effects on cetaceans
arising from organic contaminants and heavy metals in
previous Resolutions. However it believed that the time had
come to revisit this issue and accordingly it had submitted
a draft Resolution for the Commissions consideration
(IWC/64/13).
Germany elaborated on the key elements of the
Resolution by stating that the increasing levels of organic
contaminants and heavy metals in the marine environment
raised concerns about their impact on the health of cetaceans
and their potential harm to people consuming whale
meat. The last time the IWC adopted a Resolution on this
important topic was more than 10 years ago47 and since then
a number of scientific studies had been published on this
issue. In particular the Arctic Councils 2011 study on Arctic
Pollution gave a comprehensive overview of the serious
challenges to be tackled. The Resolution placed continued
scientific research as a first priority and requested the
Scientific Committee to remain engaged in the evaluation of
the available data on organic contaminants and heavy metals
47
See Resolution 2001-10 Resolution on the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Chemicals (Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2001: 58
[2002]).
in cetaceans and effects on reproduction. Secondly, the

Resolution called upon Governments to take all necessary
steps to implement existing legislation and standards aiming
at reducing the import of contaminants including heavy
metals into marine ecosystems. Finally, the Resolution
appealed to the Governments concerned to remain vigilant
and to inform consumers about all potential health effects
related to the consumption of cetacean products.
Norway requested four small amendments to the text
to clarify that the concerns regarding contaminants were
related only to some rather than to all cetacean species
and populations. Iceland emphasised the difference in
contaminant levels between baleen whales and toothed
whales. Mexico drew attention to recent studies showing
that contamination is not limited to toothed whales but is
found also in baleen cetaceans, for example accumulation
of mercury and heavy metals in minke whales beyond levels
that are tolerable to human beings. Australia requested the
addition of a preambular paragraph reading Recalling also
that IWC Resolution 2003-2 urges Governments to limit
scientific research to non-lethal methods only. The USA
requested a change to the penultimate operative paragraph
to request governments to inform consumers about both the
positive and negative health effects related to consumption
of cetacean products and to take actions to counter the
negative effects.
Switzerland stated that the environment health issue
had become a bigger concern over the years and that the
consequences for human health were beyond the role of
the IWC. However it invited Contracting Governments
to work together to tackle problems relating to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and as
well the on-going negotiations surrounding the Convention
to regulate or minimise the negative effects of mercury.
Switzerland confirmed it was happy to be associated with
the draft Resolution and requested the sponsors to accept
co-sponsorship from Switzerland.
Norway, Switzerland, Australia, St Kitts and Nevis,
the USA, Ecuador, Colombia, New Zealand, India, Brazil,
Mexico, Argentina and Chile expressed support for the
Resolution and the proposed amendments by Norway,
the USA and Australia. Iceland, St Lucia, Japan, Palau,
and Tanzania also supported the draft Resolution and
amendments, with the exception of that proposed by
Australia.
The Chair observed that there was widespread support
for the draft Resolution and proposed to hold the item
open so as to give the proponents time to take account of
the requested changes. Upon returning to the discussion,
Germany confirmed that the text of the draft Resolution had
been updated as follows: (1) Switzerland had been added
as a co-sponsor; (2) modifications had been made to the
text in response to Norways proposed amendments; (3)
a preambular paragraph had been added as requested by
Australia; (4) the change requested by the USA regarding
both the positive and negative health effects had been made
to the penultimate operative paragraph; and (5) the second
sentence of the penultimate operative paragraph had been
proposed for deletion as it repeated the meaning of the first
sentence.
Mexico and Australia said that they would have
preferred the second sentence of the penultimate operative
paragraph to be retained rather than deleted. Japan noted
that the proposed Resolution referred to several previous
Resolutions (e.g. 2003-2) which were adopted by vote
rather than consensus. Noting the Chairs request that the
current draft be adopted by consensus Japan requested the

removal of references to previous Resolutions which had
been adopted by vote.
Australia said that given the importance of the draft
Resolution it did not wish to block consensus adoption.
Accordingly it was willing to delete the paragraph it had
proposed for addition which referred to IWC Resolution
2003-2 urging Governments to limit scientific research to
non-lethal methods only. Australia stated that it attached
very great importance to Resolution 2003-2 and it made
the proposal to delete the paragraph only because of the
importance of health effects on cetaceans and human beings.
The Chair, Germany, the USA and St Kitts and Nevis thanked
Australia for assisting the achievement of consensus.
St Kitts and Nevis highlighted the wording of Resolution
1999-4 which requested the Secretariat to correspond with
the World Health Organisation which led to a welcome
exchange of information. However, the proposed draft
Resolution requested increased cooperation with the WHO,
which St Kitts and Nevis considered to be a different activity
and that it was outside of the scope of the IWC to become
involved in the affairs of another organisation. In order to
ensure consistency with Resolution 1999-4 St Kitts and
Nevis requested that the phrase increased cooperation in the
first operative paragraph be changed to increased exchange
of information.
Germany reported that the amendments discussed were
acceptable to the co-sponsors of the Resolution including the
additional amendments as suggested by Mexico and St Kitts
and Nevis and the withdrawal of the paragraph referring to
Resolution 2003-2 as proposed by Australia. With regards
to these final amendments the Chair acknowledged the
consensus support for the Resolution, which was adopted
accordingly. The agreed text of Resolution 2012-1 is
provided at Annex D.
Sandra Altherr of Pro Wildlife welcomed the proposed
Resolution which summarised past discussion on contamination of cetacean products and encouraged closer
cooperation with the World Health Organisation. Given
recent scientific findings, Pro Wildlife said this initiative
should be of high priority for all IWC members. In 2012 a
scientific review of five cohort studies in the Faroe Islands
indicated that consumers of all ages were exposed to serious
health risks related to the consumption of contaminated
cetacean products. In children impacts on reaction time,
attention, memory and language were recorded where their
mothers had consumed contaminated whale meat during
pregnancy and breast feeding. These effects correlated with
exposure to mercury and PCB levels. A follow up study
documented that the effects still manifested in children seven
years later. Adults were also affected as shown by cohort
studies from the Faroe Islands. These showed that adults in
their 70s had an increased risk to diabetes and Parkinsons
disease in relation to PCB and mercury levels. In Greenland
a 2004 study showed that variations in mortality were
thought to be related to differences in organo-chlorine levels.
Furthermore, persistent organic pollutants may contribute to
sex ratio changes in the offspring of exposed populations.
In Canada in 2011 new results from a study involving 300
children from all 14 Nunavik communities were published.
The study directly associated mercury exposure from
beluga whale meat with a poor intellectual function and
attention in school48. In 2011, the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program released a report on Arctic pollution
Quote taken from a video by the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and
Social Services.
48
51
which underscored that marine mammals and fish were the

main source of mercury exposure for Arctic indigenous
people. The report called on health authorities to promote
the availability and consumption of imported food items
with high nutritional value and to promote consumption of
traditional local foods such as fish and terrestrial mammals
that have lower levels of mercury and high nutrient value.
There were several other scientific papers which have been
published over the last two years with alarming results. These
findings were not limited to toothed whales as baleen whales
with high contamination levels exceeding safety limits had
been identified for example northern minke whales and
Brydes whales. Pro Wildlife said that the issue needed to be
addressed urgently and the Resolution was therefore timely
and appropriate.
18.12 Other
The Commission noted the Scientific Committees report
on Environmental and Health Issues and endorsed its
recommendations.
19. OTHER SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
ACTIVITIES, ITS FUTURE WORK PLAN AND
ADOPTION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
REPORT
19.1 Small cetaceans
19.1.1 Review of ziphiids in the North Pacific Ocean and
the northern Indian Ocean
Report of the Scientific Committee
The Committees main focus this year was a review of

ziphiids in the North Pacific Ocean and the northern Indian
Ocean. This was a major task and involved reviewing 10
species. Considerable valuable information was presented
on biology, ecology, status and conservation issues. A
number of specific scientific recommendations were made.
This is not surprising given that beaked whales are difficult
animals to study and so there are major information gaps
for several of the species. This is reflected in the fact that
eight of the species are listed as data deficient by IUCN and
the Committee had no information to suggest changes to the
classification.
This summary focuses on common issues and threats
and on general recommendations. A well-known threat
to beaked whales comes from military sonar and seismic
surveys. The Committee received information on field
techniques to examine stranded animals to try to establish
cause of death. Provided that the animals can be examined
within about 12 hours then sampling bubbles for gas
composition is a valuable technique, especially for mass
strandings.
The Committee also noted that there have been no
atypical mass strandings of beaked whales off the Canary
Islands since international military exercises ceased in
2004. This supports the inference that the atypical mass
strandings reported there before that time were caused by
mid-frequency sonar.
Given the evidence, the Committee strongly recommended that military exercises involving sonar and seismic
surveys should avoid important beaked whale habitat and
other mitigation measures should be improved. To assist in
this, international collaborative efforts should be made to
determine important beaked whale habitats. The Committee
also reiterated two previous recommendations regarding
further studies on beaked whales and noise, and the provision
of advance notice of military sonar exercises and seismic
surveys.
52
The Committee also received information on the

possibility that beaked whales are especially vulnerable
to marine debris. It recommended further investigation of
this issue including the development of standard pathology
protocols. Further information is needed to enable better
assessment of status including population structure and
abundance. Special attention should be paid to small and/or
exploited populations.
Related to this, the Committee recommended that more
efforts are made to develop methods for assessing these
difficult-to-study species including the use of acoustics
and improved analytical techniques for visual and acoustic
surveys. Collaborative spatial modelling exercises similar
to that undertaken for Mediterranean beaked whales should
be undertaken in the region, to develop maps of potential
critical habitat.
As for many other species, entanglement in fishing gear
is an actual or potential threat to beaked whales in the region.
The Committee recommended that methods be developed
and applied to estimate mortality rates with special attention
being given to areas where beaked whales and fishing
operations overlap.
The Committee received some evidence of a decline in
beaked whale abundance along the west coast of the USA
that might be related to large-scale environmental change. It
recommended that studies be undertaken to investigate this
further.
Finally, the Committee recommended collaborative
integrated studies to work further on genetics, photoidentification, acoustics and surveys.
19.1.2 Vaquita
The Committee was extremely sorry to have to once again

stress that this species is close to extinction. It has stated
this many times and made very strong recommendations
but the most recent monitoring information showed that
the population has continued to decline since 2008 when
the abundance estimate was perhaps as few as 220 animals.
This is despite the actions taken by the government to reduce
fishing effort. The Committee received information that
illegal fishing continues with one report of 87 boats fishing
within the refuge.
The Committee strongly endorsed the report and
recommendations of the International Committee for the
Recovery of the Vaquita held from 20-23 February 2012.
It also made two additional recommendations: one on
the expedited approval and adoption of shrimp trawls as
alternatives to shrimp fishing with gillnets throughout the
entire range of the vaquita not just within the refuge; and
a second on continued research on technologies to reduce
gillnetting for finfish or otherwise to remove all gillnets
from the vaquitas entire range.
To conclude, the Committee strongly reiterated its
extreme concern. It reaffirmed that the only reliable approach
for saving the species is to eliminate vaquita bycatch. That
means removing entangling gear from all areas where the
animals occur. It strongly recommended that, if extinction is
to be avoided, all gillnets should be removed from the upper
Gulf of California immediately.
The USA, supported by Argentina, Chile and Panama,

commended the Government of Mexico for its past
conservation initiatives on the fisheries bycatch of the
vaquita. Nonetheless these countries were greatly concerned
about the continuing plight of the species. Noting that the
Scientific Committee had expressed its extreme concern for

the status of the vaquita these countries supported continued
joint efforts with Mexico to develop alternate fishing gear
and alternate approaches to fishing that adequately protected
a species at the brink of extinction.
Austria said that the core responsibility of the IWC
was to protect whale and dolphin population species from
extinction. One worst case scenario had taken place very
recently; namely the extinction of the baiji in China and
the IWC was on the brink of another worst case scenario in
respect of the vaquita in Mexico. Austria said that that there
was a need to take responsibility for species conservation,
and that the responsibility would be all the greater when
a highly evolved mammal species is lost forever. The
Scientific Committee has communicated its concern in
the strongest language they have at their disposal. Austria
considered that it was time for diplomatic niceties and step
wise strategies to take a back seat to immediate concrete
action, with no compromise. It therefore called upon the
Commission, the Secretariat, the range state and NGOs to
bundle and boost their efforts on the vaquita to an entirely
new higher level of urgency and resoluteness. Ecuador said
that it had recognised the rights of nature in its constitution
and urged support for Austrias proposals and the reduction
of impacts by gillnets.
to the IWC to express its deep concern about the threats to
vaquita posed by gillnets. It said that bycatch is an extremely
severe threat to cetaceans worldwide which is estimated
to kill 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises each year.
It congratulated Mexico for its positive stance which had
included a programme to reduce the use of gillnets in vaquita
habitat. Cyprus hoped to see the rapid implementation of the
Scientific Committees recommendation that all gillnets now
be removed immediately. The EU had been working with
Mexico on this initiative and hoped to continue doing so.
Mexico expressed its gratitude for all comments related
to the vaquita and recalled that it had reported progress on
this issue since 1997. It recognised that there was still much
to be done to eliminate the gillnets and allow this species
to recover. The goal of the comprehensive vaquita recovery
programme was to protect and conserve the marine mammal
and it included socio-economic and cultural considerations
as well as fisheries management and monitoring concerns.
Progress made so far included significant declines in illegal
fishing and the rate of loss of the population had become
much slower but was not yet able to bring about a recovery
of the population. A working group was currently developing
a process to amend the law regulating shrimp fishing with
the idea being to remove gillnets from 2013 onwards.
The progress made so far was due in great measure to the
Scientific Committees recommendations and also the IWC
Resolution 2007-5 on vaquita. Mexico thanked the countries
who continued to support work on vaquita and particularly
the USA for its on-going partnership and Sweden for its
assistance in the development of alternative fishing gears.
19.1.3 Eastern North Atlantic harbour porpoise
The Committee considered the eastern North Atlantic

harbour porpoise and specifically those living in the Baltic,
Kattegat/Belt and North Sea areas. Results from ASCOBANS
reinforce earlier concerns about the sustainability of bycatch
in the region. In addition, a number of other factors potentially
affecting the porpoise populations in the region, including
declines in availability of prey, ship traffic, construction
work, seabed exploitation, contaminants and diseases.
The Committee is especially concerned about harbour

porpoises found in the Belt Sea stock where there are
indications of decline. The Committee looks forward to
receiving the results from a dedicated survey carried out
in the summer of 2012. Bycatch is the major source of
mortality and should be monitored and mitigated. Bycatch
is not adequately monitored and mitigated there because the
EU regulations do not apply to boats <12m. The Committee
also made a number of recommendations with regard to the
Gap area. These relate to gaining a better understand threats
and the development of appropriate mitigation measures.
Finally the Committee reiterated its longstanding
concern regarding the critically endangered harbour
porpoise population in the inner Baltic (Baltic proper). The
Committee urged that effective monitoring and mitigation
measures are included in national management plans.

19.1.4 Franciscana in Brazil
The Committee was pleased to receive the results of a survey

undertaken under the IWCs Small Cetacean Voluntary Fund
of the franciscana in what is called Franciscana Management
Area 1 (or FMA 1) in Brazil. The estimate for FMA 1 was
around 2,000 franciscanas with a wide confidence interval
of 800-5,000. A comparison with the only available bycatch
estimates from the early 2000s suggests that current bycatch
may be high and unsustainable. The Committee endorsed
the recommendations in the National Action Plan for the
Recovery of the Franciscana developed by the relevant
government agency of Brazil, as well as a number of
additional recommendations.
Brazil said that it was concerned over the problems faced by

the franciscana and had evaluated the Scientific Committees
recommendations, which it would adopt. Brazil provided a
paper containing further details which had been analysed
and welcomed by the Scientific Committee. Brazil thanked
the IWC for the research it had undertaken and stated that
it was committed to improving research and monitoring in
order to reduce anthropogenic mortality.
19.1.5 River dolphins
The Committee has expressed great concerns over the status

of river dolphins in the past. This year, it reiterated serious
concerns over the population implications of the intentional
killing of botos and tucuxis for use as bait in the piracatinga
fishery in Brazil. This relatively new and rapidly growing
problem is in addition to other historical and ongoing
threats to these dolphins, e.g. from incidental mortality in
fisheries, vessel traffic, hydroelectric dams, mining and
other development.
In this light, the Committee recommended the organisation of an international scientific workshop involving
scientists and managers from the range states. The goals of
the workshop would be to address research and conservation
priorities, standardise methodologies and develop longterm strategies. The status of the boto and tucuxi will be
added as a recurrent item on the Committees agenda. The
Committee welcomed information that the Government of
Brazil was supporting a PhD studentship to further methods
of assessing river dolphins.
The Committee was pleased to hear that WWF-Pakistan
had hosted a Conservation Strategy Planning Workshop in
53
Lahore (Pakistan) during April 2012 to begin to develop a

ten-year strategic action plan for the endangered Indus River
dolphin.
All freshwater populations of Irrawaddy dolphins are
listed on the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered.
The non-calf Mekong River population is estimated at 85
individuals with recruitment close to zero. The available
information suggests a slow decline (2.2% per year) with
serious implications for the long-term viability of the
population. Last year, the Committee expressed grave
concern about the rapid and at least partially unexplained
decline of this riverine population. Unfortunately, the high
mortality of young calves has continued as has the occasional
mortality of adults from entanglement. This year, the
Committee commends the Cambodian government agencies
and WWF-Cambodia for making serious, concerted efforts
to diagnose the cause(s) of calf mortality and further reduce
the risk of entanglement. The Kratie Declaration is a major
step forward and the Committee recommended that it be
fully implemented as quickly and as effectively as possible.
Brazil welcomed the Scientific Committees recommendations regarding the boto and tucuxi and was ready to adopt
them. It was particularly concerned with the new problem of
these species being used for bait and said it was committed
to organising the suggested international scientific workshop
on these species as soon as possible.
Colombia indicated that it would act in line with the
Scientific Committees recommendations to undertake
coordinated efforts with the range states to evaluate the
impact of the dedicated catch of the species which were
endemic to the Amazon watershed. These threats, including
the use as bait, were a cross-border problem which had
been gathering strength in recent years. The results of the
deliberations would be submitted to the next meeting of the
Scientific Committee and Colombia asked for this topic to
remain on the Commissions agenda.
China introduced information on its work to protect the
Yangtze finless porpoise whose population numbers around
1,400 individuals living exclusively within the Yangtze
River. The Government had introduced nature reserves and
established protection from hunting. A number of dolphins
had been removed to support breeding programmes and two
or three babies had been born each year. Public awareness
measures had also been introduced and China would
continue to make future efforts to protect the population.
19.1.6 Central American small cetaceans
The Committee was pleased to receive three papers on

work on small cetaceans in Columbia, Venezuela and Costa
Rica. Such work to establish baselines, distribution records,
and habitat requirements was essential to addressing the
concerns of the Committee.

19.1.7 Hectors dolphins
The Committee received new information on endangered

Hectors dolphins in New Zealand, where bycatch from
legal and illegal fishing is a serious problem. Although
the news was better for the Banks Peninsula where there
is a protected area which shows signs of improving, the
Committee expressed particular concern about the low
abundance of Mauis dolphins, a North Island subspecies of
54
Hectors dolphin which may number as few as 55 animals. It

recommended the immediate implementation of the proposal
by the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries to
extend the North Island protected area. This would at least
protect an area with high gillnet and trawl fishing effort.
The Committee also agreed that adequate observer coverage
across all inshore trawl and gillnet fisheries was important in
order to obtain robust scientific data on continuing bycatch
as a means of assessing the effectiveness of protection
measures.

the IWC and noted that the Mauis dolphins of New Zealand
were strongly affected by gillnets. Given the extremely low
numbers of Mauis dolphin, recommendations to ban all
gillnets from the Mauis dolphins habitat had been made
by the Scientific Committee. Cyprus was interested to know
what steps New Zealand intended to take to implement the
recommendation and address this critical problem.
New Zealand stated that its Government and people
were very concerned about the Mauis dolphin population
and it had reported to the Conservation Committee on
the steps being taken to predict the endemic dolphins. In
response to a Mauis dolphin being caught in a commercial
gillnet off Cape Town in January 2012, New Zealand
undertook a threat management assessment process. As a
result of that assessment the Department of Conservation
and the Ministry for Primary Industries proposed to extend
the boundaries of the existing marine mammal sanctuary
and fisheries restricted area off the west coast of the North
Island. In July 2012 the Ministry for Primary Industries
was expected to implement the decision to extend the area
banning all commercial and recreational set netting by 80
linear miles and by over 230,000 hectares. The extension of
the sanctuary and fisheries restricted area meant that there
will be protection for Mauis dolphins over the whole of the
dolphins known range.
New Zealand considered that Protective Area Management was effective for improving marine mammal survival.
In the same context it reported that the survival of Hectors
dolphins at Banks Peninsular had improved by over 5%
since the creation of a marine mammal sanctuary in that
area.
Argentina, Chile and Sweden thanked the Government
of New Zealand for its actions to protect the Hectors and
Mauis dolphins. Argentina recorded its support for all of
the Scientific Committees recommendations on small
cetaceans.
19.1.8 Catch and bycatch information
The Secretariat provided a summary of small cetaceans

catch and bycatch in 2009-11 from this years national
Progress Reports. The Committee is concerned that it is not
doing enough to take advantage of the significant catch and
bycatch information it receives and has agreed to consider
this further intersessionally. It reiterated the importance of
having complete and accurate catch and bycatch information
and encouraged all countries to submit data, appropriately
qualified and annotated. The Committee received an update
on a humpback dolphin project which had found evidence of
a significant bycatch problem in Congo.
19.1.9 Future priority topics
The Committee had agreed that ziphiids of the Southern

Hemisphere will be the priority topic at the 2013 meeting
and the systematics and population structure of Tursiops
should be the priority topic for 2014. However, in the past,
the Committee has sometimes re-evaluated the priority
topics based on the location of the meetings. The Committee
also agreed to proceed with planning for a workshop
characterised along the lines of poorly documented hunts
of small cetaceans for food, bait or cash.
19.1.10 Other small cetacean issues
South Africa thanked the Scientific Committee for its review

of ziphiids and also noted that the Committee had expressed
great concern regarding the conservation status of several
small cetacean species and had made recommendations
to mitigate impacts. South Africa endorsed all those
recommendations and urged the Commission and range
states to adopt and implement such measures.
Peru provided an update on the recent mortality of
small cetaceans that occurred along the northern Peruvian
coast between February and the first half of April 2012.
The Peruvian Government had investigated the event and
produced a multi-disciplinary report that considered the
ecological, environmental and human impacts. The main
results indicated that the individuals examined showed good
physical condition without evidence of injuries or clinical
signs related to Brucella. The results of the molecular
analysis were also negative. No internal haemorrhaging
was found or alterations to the organs including the brain.
Climate conditions in the region had been atypical with warm
waters from the northwest, intense rainfall that led to higher
than average river levels and the occurrence of an El Nio
event along the coastline. Causes related to human activities
including direct impact resulting from contamination by
heavy metals and other pollutants had been discounted, and
the seismic exploration undertaken in northern Peru in 2012
was not related because the strandings began before the
survey commenced. Peru had not been able to determine the
exact cause but was considering the possibility of bio-toxins
related to algal blooms may have played a role. It said that
it would continue to investigate and would present a further
report to the Scientific Committee.
Chile congratulated the Scientific Committee on its
work and the growing concern for the conservation of
small cetaceans. It said that this year there were many
recommendations to promote further research but a lesser
number of recommendations related to conservation. It said
that this was uneven across the working groups and urged
the Scientific Committee to also focus on conservation
recommendations. Mexico supported Chile and highlighted
the conservation management recommendations it had
received in respect of the vaquita.
19.2 Regional non-lethal research partnerships
The Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP) was
originally proposed by Australia. The objective is to
develop a multilateral non-lethal research programme that
will provide relevant scientific information to the IWC.
The partnership now involves 10 countries. The IWC has a
voluntary budget associated with SORP with contributions
from Australia and the USA.
[2013].
49
Many of the recommended SORP projects have been

discussed under other items and this is particularly true of
the major projects related to blue whales, especially the
Antarctic Blue Whale Project and the project on blue and
fin whale acoustics. The Committee encouraged further
international involvement in this programme, stressing
the importance of standardised research protocols. The
Committee was also pleased to receive updates on work on
killer whales and Oceania humpback whales.
The Living Whales Symposium comprised an open
symposium and four subsequent workshops that were held
in Chile from 27-29 March 2012 (see SC/64/O14). Its full
title was Living whales in the Southern Ocean: advances in
methods for non-lethal cetacean research. The workshop on
health assessment recommended that health assessment data
and studies should be integrated with population dynamics
data, where possible; and that integration of live animal
health assessment with studies on dead and stranded animals,
particularly within the same geographical region, is highly
informative and should be a priority. The workshop on large
whale population dynamics and environmental variability
looked at data and modelling/analytical approaches. It
recommended that long-term studies, photo-identification
and biopsy sampling be routinely used. It also promoted
the use of geochemical tracers (e.g. stable isotopes) and
other eco-markers, including DNA, since this approach
can help to identify foraging locations of populations.
The workshop on advances in long-term satellite tagging
techniques reviewed recent advances on tag development. It
recommended increased design effort to minimise/eliminate
trauma of implant and water ingress. Some devices have
the potential to cause considerable tissue damage and that
studies on carcasses derived from incidental mortality should
be conducted, as well as the monitoring of tagged animals.
In addition to technical development recommendations, the
workshop highlighted the need to create awareness on the use
of these techniques prior to the tagging project. The workshop
on the estimation of diet and consumption rates highlighted
several techniques that might be used to achieve this difficult
objective. Understanding interspecific differences in prey
preference will help to predict how climate driven changes
affect krill and, ultimately whales. The need for improved
knowledge of how local oceanographic conditions and prey
availability affect the foraging behaviour and distribution
was highlighted. The importance of better understanding of
foraging strategies, prey choices and feeding destinations
was also recognised.
The Committee thanked the Symposium/Workshop
organisers and funders. Its value for improving current
cetacean research was stressed. It may also assist with
research on climate change impacts on cetaceans, e.g.
southern right whales in the southwest Atlantic, in line with
wider SORP objectives.
The USA thanked the Chair of the Scientific Committee
for her presentation of the SORP and noted the growing
consensus on the importance of the programme which
was inter-disciplinary as well as international in scope.
The USA commended Australia for its efforts and pledged
to continue USA participation and support. It noted that
in this budgetary environment Australias effort was truly
exceptional and should be applauded. France thanked
Australia for the SORP initiative which showed that nonlethal scientific research could be constructively carried out
in the Southern Ocean. It said that the French participation
would be carried out from the icebreaking vessel Astrolabe
55
in the Southern Ocean and the data obtained would be at

the disposal of the SORP community so as to contribute to
better understanding of the species, their movements and
their relationship with the environment. Chile supported the
work done under SORP and had actively participated in the
programme. It recalled that it had hosted the Living Whales
Symposium in March 2012 and thanked the Governments
of the USA and Australia as well as the IWC for supporting
the event. Mexico, Argentina, Monaco and New Zealand all
congratulated Australia on the SORP programme. Australia
thanked those countries who had participated in SORP and
especially thanked Chile for hosting the Symposium.
19.3 Other activities
19.3.1.1 Stock identity50
This item deals with the technical issues related to stock

definitions and population structure that face the Committee.
Information on population structure is an essential part
of the Committees work and it is especially important
when assessing the status of whale populations using the
modelling frameworks that form the basis for the provision
of conservation and management advice. This modelling
forms the basis of in-depth assessments and RMP or AWMP
status evaluations. These are all key to providing advice on
the effects of human activities on whales, including direct
hunting, bycatch in fishing gear and ship strikes.
The Committee agreed a number of recommendations
concerning the methodological and technical issues related
to stock definitions as well as general guidance on the
presentation and interpretation of genetic data.
The Committee also discussed the progress made in
updating the living document that provides guidelines for
ensuring sufficient quality in genetic data. This is especially
important when they are used to inform the provision of
conservation and management advice. The Committee
is also close to completing a set of guidelines for the use
and interpretation in an IWC context of some of the more
common types of statistical analyses of genetic data. Both
sets of guidelines will be available on the IWC website and
published. A suite of definitions of terms like population,
subpopulation, stock, sub-stock and management unit
is being developed.
The Scientific Committee has also developed a software
package called TOSSM which can be used to evaluate
the value of specific analytical methods for setting stock
boundaries. It is very important to understand scientific
uncertainty in this when providing conservation and
management advice. It can be used to investigate how certain
observed genetic results might arise. This is important
in providing conservation and management advice. For
example, it was helpful in the review of the Pacific Coast
Feeding Group of gray whales this year.
19.3.1.2 DNA Testing51
GenBank is an important worldwide scientific database that

provides as annotated collection of all publicly available
DNA sequences. It contains many millions of entries. The
Committee has reviewed the cetacean entries in GenBank
in the past and has found some inconsistencies. It has been
trying to clarify these entries but have had some difficulties
contacting the relevant authors. It is investigating ways to
ensure that the records are updated.
[2013].
51
[2013].
50
56
The Committee has also been reviewing DNA registers

held by a number of countries. These domestic registers
contain individual identification data and can be used to
determine the origin of whale samples. The information
is submitted voluntarily to the Committee by countries.
To assist the Committees review, it had agreed a new
format for the updates of national DNA registers last year.
It welcomed the fact that the updates of the DNA registers
by Japan, Norway and Iceland this year were based on this
new format. This greatly facilitated the annual review. The
Committee also commended the analyses on quality control
carried out on the Norwegian DNA register.
19.3.1.3 Working methods of the Committee52
The Committee regularly reviews its working methods and

this year covered five topics.
The first topic related to ways to reduce the financial and
environmental costs of meetings. This was reported to the
Finance and Administration Committee and can be found
under Item 21 below.
The second topic related to clarifications of the long
established Data Availability Agreement (DAA). This
specifically related to requests under what is termed
Procedure B. These are requests for data that are deemed
important in providing advice to the Commission on matters
other than catch limits. The full Data Availability Agreement,
adopted by the Scientific Committee and the Commission
can be found on the IWC website. The Procedure B process
has generally worked well and especially so when the
Committee has been able to clearly specify the data request
during the Committee meeting. The Committee reiterated
the importance of clearly specifying any data requests.
The Committee has always encouraged collaboration in
research projects under the DAA but this is not mandatory.
To avoid misunderstandings, the Committee recommended
that an additional point to clarify this be added to the Data
Availability Agreement Procedure B text.
The third topic related to updating the Committees
handbook. This follows on from discussions last year, when
it was agreed that the Chair of the Scientific Committee
should develop a review document for consideration this
year. This document focused on whether or not there is a
need to expand on the guidelines with respect to further
details about the roles of Convenors and co-Convenors, time
frames of service and the roles of Heads of Delegation.
After a full discussion, the Committee agreed that the
basic responsibilities of Convenors and co-Convenors as
described in the Handbook (published on the website), do
not need amending. It did, however, recommend additional
text to ensure that a draft prioritised list of funding projects
should to be made available to the full Committee in enough
time for them to review it thoroughly, as had been the case
this year. It also agreed that the co-Convenor concept has
worked well, and it recommended additional text on the
eligibility of Convenors and co-Convenors be added to the
Handbook. The Committee also agreed that the existing
guidelines on the selection of Convenors by the Chair are
adequate and provide the necessary flexibility. It reaffirmed
that the Chair should take carefully into account the length
of service of Convenors when appointing them. This can
be revisited in future years if necessary. The Committee
also agreed that the roles of Heads of Delegations were
adequately provided for in the existing Handbook. Finally,
it agreed that the Handbook, when updated, should also be
52
[2013].
available as a pdf file. It will eventually contain a glossary

of the many acronyms and specialist terms that are used in
Scientific Committee reports.
The fourth topic related to providing assistance to new
members on the working of the Committee. One of the
reasons for the introduction of the Handbook was to assist
new members, as well as being a reference for all. However,
the Committee recognised that it can seem a complex
place for new members. Therefore, it has agreed that an
introductory lecture on the Committee and its methods of
working will be given during the first or second day of the
Scientific Committee meeting.
The fifth topic related to a suggestion by one member
that suggested that while management recommendations
are widely given in some sub-committees, especially when
addressing whaling issues, in other sub-groups, the attention
seems to be more focused on scientific recommendations
with relatively few conservation recommendations. It was
suggested that this be reviewed further in the context of
an increased emphasis on conservation recommendations.
Given the limited time available at this meeting to discuss
this issue, the Committee agreed that this matter should be
placed on the Agenda for discussion at next years meeting.
19.3.1.4 Publications
Despite staff limitations the IWC publications department

produced a 520pp Supplement, 3 issues of the Journal (two
are at the printers) with one more almost complete; and a
Special Issue on Southern Hemisphere humpback whales.
The special issue on the RMP is progressing and should
be available early 2013. A special volume commemorating
the IDCR/SOWER cruises will be undertaken by an Editorial
Board under Bannister.
The testing and trial process for a complete online
submission and review process has been completed and has
recently become operational.
All of the Journal volumes are now available as pdf files
and the Journal will become available in that format either
directly via the new IWC website or through an existing
company; the Secretariat is in the process of examining the
practical and financial implications of this and will report
back to the Committee next year.
The Committee thanked Donovan and his team for the
excellent work on publications. It reiterates the importance
of these to its work as well as providing outside scientists
the opportunity to benefit from the Committees work and to
encourage co-operation with the Committee.
19.3.1.5 Election of officers
This was third and last year as Chair of the Scientific

Committee for Debra Palka. The Committee expressed
its great appreciation for her tireless, fair and excellent
work during the three-year term. It was also Dr Toshihide
Kitakados last year as Vice-Chair and the Committee was
pleased that he has agreed to take on the role of Chair at
the end of the Commission Meeting. Finally the Scientific
Committee Heads of Delegations unanimously nominated
Dr Caterina Fortuna from Italy as Vice-Chair and the
Committee welcomed her acceptance.
The Chair of the Commission was joined by the USA,
Australia and Mexico in congratulating Dr Palka on the
completion of her three-year term as Chair of the Scientific
Committee. They commended her efforts and thanked her
for her excellent handling of difficult issues. The Chair
wished Dr Kitakado and Dr Fortuna every success in their
new roles.
19.4 Scientific Committee future work plan

The Committee developed a proposed work plan and initial
draft agenda. It stressed that it is the Commission that
establishes overall priorities and the final agenda for next
years meeting will as usual take into account Commission
discussions.
Australia noted that the Commission establishes the
Committees overall priorities and said that it did not
consider the proposed intersessional expert workshop for
final review of Icelands Special Permit programme on
common minke whales as a Commission priority54. This
was particularly the case where budget allocations were
limited. Special Permits were self-issued by the originating
country and Australia saw no reason for the IWC to allocate
significant resources to review self-issued Permits. At the
very most, it suggested that some IWC funds could be used
to support the core elements of the IWC implementation of
the Annex P process, including perhaps support for the
Scientific Committee Chair and Vice-Chair and perhaps
Head of Science. Australia said that this matter had a bearing
on wider budgetary issues because of the number of other
calls on the Commissions budget being raised through
the work of other Committees and Sub-committees for
which no provision was made in the budget. Accordingly
it suggested that there was merit in including a standing
item in the F&A Committee Agenda looking at the budget
for intersessional work across all of the Committees, Subcommittees including the Scientific Committee, ASW Subcommittee, the group on Whaling Killing methods and
associated welfare issues, the Conservation Committee
and the Infractions Sub-committee. The F&A Committee
could then recommend to the Commission a budget which
addressed the Commissions key priorities across the work
of all its Committees. The need to appropriately address
funding of intersessional work programs was all the more
important with the proposed move to biennial meetings.
The USA understood the need to finalise the review
of Icelands scientific whaling research programme which
was an agreed process by the Scientific Committee and the
Commission. The review was already overdue. However,
given Iceland had already concluded its research programme
the review could not be considered a priority or an immediate
need. The USA asked that the Government of Iceland
considered supporting half the cost of the workshop or that
the total cost be reduced to less than 12,000. The UK and
Mexico supported the statements by USA and Australia and
the UK said that priority should be given to other projects
identified by the Scientific Committee. Mexico said that
those who undertook unilateral whaling should pay for it.
Iceland repeated its views recorded at Agenda Item
14.2.3 that it was unable to postpone or delay the workshop
because of the advanced nature of the planning and the
restricted availability of the necessary scientific staff. It
welcomed the USAs suggestion of reducing the budget but
was unable to accept the proposal because of the advanced
nature of the plans.
Japan believed that the Commission should respect the
Scientific Committees proposed allocation of funding. It
also highlighted that the proposed budgetary allocations had
been approved and recommended in both the Budgetary SubFor a full account of the work programme see J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
(Suppl.) 14, Item 21 [2013].
54
See also discussions under Agenda Item 14.2.3.
53
57
committee and the Finance and Administration Committee.

Japan said that given the unanimous recommendations
from both Committees there should be no need for the
Commission to examine the budget.
In light of the discussions Australia, supported by
Mexico and the United Kingdom proposed acceptance of
the Scientific Committees future work plan and the budget,
including the 24,000 for the final review of Icelands Special
Permit whaling programme, but in doing so it recorded its
view that countries who conduct unilateral self-determined
whaling programmes under special permit should pay the
full costs associated with any IWC reviews and that these
reviews should not be paid for by the IWC. The issues had
arisen because of a lack of clarity in Annex P on how
reviews would be funded. Recognising upcoming future
reviews Australia suggested that the Commission (through
the Finance and Administration Committee) should develop
guidelines for funding such reviews and these be included in
Annex P. The USA accepted the proposed budget for the
Scientific Committee and agreed the issue should be dealt
with by the F&A Committee.
Iceland, supported by Japan and St Kitts and Nevis
welcomed Australias acceptance of the proposed budget.
However these countries noted their disagreement with the
view that all costs associated with the process should be
borne by the country conducting the research. The review
was organised by the Scientific Committee and the total costs
were therefore decided by the IWC. There was no upper
limit to such costs in Annex P and so it was unreasonable
that such costs should be inflicted on the research country.
Iceland agreed that there should be a further discussion on
this in the F&A Committee.
19.5 Adoption of the Scientific Committees report
The Commission noted the entire report of the Scientific
Committee, including its work plan and budget and endorsed
any recommendations. The Chair thanked the outgoing
Chair of the Scientific Committee for her considerable hard
work and excellent reporting.
20. CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER
ORGANISATIONS
The Committee greatly values its co-operation with other
organisations. There are many matters discussed by the
Committee which are of mutual interest and the exchange of
ideas and observers facilitates both the IWCs work and that
of other organisations. A compilation of observers reports
was available as document IWC/64/4.
20.2 Other reports
There were no other reports under this Item.
Discussion on trade in whale meat
Mexico supported by Argentina and Chile noted that Iceland
resigned from the Commission in 1992 and re-adhered in
2002 with the reservation to paragraph 10 of the Schedule to
the ICRW. It then unilaterally began commercial minke and
fin whale hunting and established a reservation for whales
on the CITES appendix. From 2008 it had been exporting
about 2,000 tons of whale products for commercial purposes
to Japan and the Faroe Islands. The hunt and export of whale
meat occurred while discussions were taking place on the
Future of the IWC. Mexico asked Iceland to refrain from
58
requesting permits to export whale meat and to provide

information on the level of trafficking on meat and other
whale products.
Norway, supported by Iceland, Japan and the Russian
Federation stated that the matter of exports of whale meat
was not in the remit of the IWC and instead lay with CITES.
Norway noted that Iceland, Japan and Norway held a
reservation on CITES appendices for minke whale meat.
Therefore the trade was perfectly legal to the extent that it
was going on and was also not within the remit of the IWC.
India said that it was appropriate for the IWC to cooperate with other international conventions including
CITES, CMS, CBD, UNFCC and IMO so as to ensure
effective functioning. India recommended that in due course
it may be appropriate to develop collaboration with the UN,
but that the IWC should not lose the focus of its mandate.
The Commission noted the Scientific Committees report
on collaboration with other organisations and endorsed its
recommendations.
Proposed Resolution on Highly Migratory Cetaceans in the
High Seas
Monaco referred to document IWC/64/11rev, which was a
draft Resolution on highly migratory cetaceans in the high
seas. Monaco explained that the Resolution addressed the
fragmented legal coverage of highly migratory cetacean
species in the worlds oceans. The fragmented coverage
arose because cetaceans travelled long distances between
the high seas and waters under national jurisdiction and
were protected by some countries in their domestic waters
but not in others. This occurred at a time when the global
community was calling for integrated marine governance.
The problem was aggravated by the limited ability of the
IWC to ensure compliance with its own conservation and
management measures, and was further complicated by its
taxonomic mandate which meant that the IWC addressed
only 20% of the highly migratory cetacean species listed
at Annex 1 of UNCLOS. Accordingly the Resolution was
to set up effective synergies and coordination between the
IWC and the relevant United Nations processes. Monaco
commented that the integrated conservation of migratory
cetaceans was of central importance for marine ecosystems,
for the whale and dolphin watching economy and for many
developing island and coastal states.
Monaco explained that the Resolution would not shift
responsibility for whaling issues from the IWC to the United
Nations. On the contrary it would seek synergies with UN
processes by drawing the attention of a larger community of
nations to the IWCs Schedule and Resolutions which would
strengthen the Commissions work and embed it in the ongoing initiatives at UNCLOS. Monaco commented that
the remarkable progress being made by the Scientific and
Conservation Committees was being undermined because
some of the IWCs key decisions such as the moratorium and
the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were being undermined by its
own members. It commented that if the IWC continued to
operate in isolation, as a restricted club with limited visibility
that the situation would not be likely to improve. In drawing
attention to this issue, Monaco indicated that it wished to
proceed with discussion aimed at reaching consensus.
Monaco summarised the two key elements of the
proposal as being: (1) the necessity to engage in determined
and substantive cooperation with the UN General Assembly
so as to achieve protection for cetaceans, particularly in the
context of the annual negotiations for the UN Resolution
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea; and (2) to examine the
gaps in international legislation regarding the conservation

of wholly migratory cetacean species. Monaco said it had
worked to accommodate the concerns of a great many
countries and expected that the text could be used as
platform for discussion. It emphasised it wished to work
towards gaining consensus approval of the document.
to the IWC and said that the draft Resolution stressed the
need to improve the functioning of the IWC and emphasised
the points on which the organisation must improve its
regulation of unjustified whaling practises such as so
called scientific whaling sanctuaries. The draft Resolution
also highlighted the lack of consideration of a significant
number of species of cetaceans by the IWC. Furthermore,
the migration of whales and their occurrence in several
geographical areas involving coastal state waters and the
high seas is something upon which the IWC should reflect.
In terms of international governance, Cyprus believed
that the IWC was the appropriate forum for discussions
on the protection of cetaceans, including on the high seas.
Contracting Governments efforts to modernise the IWC
embodied the collective will to continue discussions within
the IWC. Cyprus, New Zealand, Panama, Ecuador, Costa
Rica, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, USA and Brazil echoed
Monacos request that the matter be decided by consensus.
Panama believed the Resolution would lead to a better
exchange of information and cooperation between the IWC
and the parties and relevant organisations of the UN. Ecuador
agreed with the need to improve the international framework
regarding highly migratory cetaceans in the high seas,
especially considering the significant number of unregulated
catches and other threats. Ecuador therefore supported the
proposal to strengthen coordination with the UN General
Assembly and the annual Oceans Resolution. Colombia
shared the need for improving compliance with decisions
and the effectiveness of the IWC on issues such as the
moratorium and commercial whaling. The agreements at the
Rio+20 Conference had highlighted the need to strengthen
international governance, in particular through greater
synergy with other agreements and the United Nations. Costa
Rica, Mexico, Chile and Argentina indicated their support
for the Resolution. Brazil said it was appropriate to call the
attention of the international community to the significant
unregulated catches of highly migratory cetaceans which
continued to take place and that many of those species were
not included in the Schedule of the ICRW. It was therefore
appropriate to seek collaboration with the UN General
Assembly. India noted that close involvement between the
IWC and UN Conventions was crucial to effective working
and accordingly it supported the Resolution.
New Zealand said that the regulation of small cetaceans
was an unresolved issue between the IWC and all other
relevant bodies. This also raised the question of the
relationship between the ICRW and the United Nations, and
New Zealand expressed concern of bringing the divisions
of the IWC into the United Nations where negotiations
proceeded largely by consensus. Nonetheless the protection
of small cetaceans was a serious question which was worthy
of consideration in the context of the UN Oceans Resolution.
The USA supported New Zealands comments and said
that highly migratory cetaceans depended on international
cooperation for the conservation and management.
Norway, supported by Iceland, shared New Zealands
concerns about bringing the IWCs divisions to the General
Assembly. The proposed Resolution should be seen in the
light of a text which was tabled by Monaco at the UN in 2011
for inclusion in a General Assembly Resolution on Oceans

and the Law of the Sea. Norway opposed that text in 2011 on
the grounds that the issues regarding cetaceans and species
issues in general were not a matter for the General Assembly
but for the competent fisheries management organisations
among which was the IWC. At that time several other
countries shared Norways position and the proposed text
was not included in the UN Resolution. Norways position
had not changed and it could not therefore accept a renewed
attempt at bringing cetacean management before the General
Assembly. Accordingly Norway stated it would oppose a
consensus.
Icelands view was that the mandate of the IWC covered
only those cetaceans listed in the Schedule to the ICRW
(1946) and it noted that small cetaceans were protected
by NAMMCO in its region. Iceland drew attention to the
wording of the proposed Resolution which asked the IWC
to regret and show deep concern for actions carried out
in part by Iceland. Iceland said it would not do this and
accordingly the Resolution was dishonest and it could never
be a consensus agreement.
Japan considered the proposed Resolution would divide
the IWC because it contained irrelevant, inconsistent and
imbalanced facts. Japan provided many examples which
included:
(1) the title of the Resolution referring to the High Seas
contrasted with the body of the Resolution which
referred to efforts by coastal states;
(2) the reference to Article 64 of UNCLOS, which it
considered to be important for highly migratory species,
was not referred to in the proposed Resolution; and
(3) the first preambular paragraph on the conservation
of migratory species contrasted with Article 65 of
UNCLOS which described measures for exploitation
and regulation of marine mammals.
Japan particularly emphasised the need to refine the
relationship between the wording of the proposed Resolution
and Articles 61, 62, 63 and 64 of UNCLOS. Japan considered
that the fifth preambular paragraph did not relate to issues
concerning highly migratory cetaceans on the high seas and
that the sixth paragraph referring to without agreed limits
was inconsistent with Article VIII of the ICRW (1946).
In conclusion Japan said it had given consideration to
participating in consensus but could not do so, partly because
of the inconsistences and partly because it believed it was not
appropriate for the IWC to give up its responsibilities and
pass them to the United Nations instead.
China shared the concerns highlighted by Norway,
Iceland and Japan and said that the IWC was the appropriate
forum for the conservation and management of cetaceans.
It said that all waters where whaling activities took place
were covered by IWC including the high seas. China took
into account the extensive agenda before the UN General
Assembly and said that instead the members of the IWC
should continue to work together to tackle such issues
difficult though they may be. Because of this, China indicated
it could not join consensus on the proposed Resolution.
Antigua and Barbuda considered it was inappropriate to
refer IWC affairs to the General Assembly and highlighted
the comments by previous speakers upon the importance of
building consensus. Tanzania did not support taking IWC
issues to the General Assembly and said it could not join
consensus. Palau associated with these views and those of
previous speakers said it could not join consensus. Grenada
referred to the deep divide within the Commission regarding
59
support for sustainable whaling and said that to bring such

a Resolution to the General Assembly without consensus
would transfer the divide to another organisation which did
not have a mandate for the conservation and management of
whales. As such Grenada could not support consensus.
Monaco expressed its gratitude for the comments made
and said the intention was not to shift responsibility for
whaling matters to another body, but instead to capture the
interest of a large body of nations which shared the IWCs
concern for migratory species. In regard to the relevance of
UNCLOS Article 64 Monaco said this was concerned with
fish harvesting and that Article 65 was relevant to marine
mammals. Monaco considered that both the IWC and
UNCLOS had unfinished business. For the IWC there was a
need to understand how to deal with the species of cetaceans
that were not currently addressed and how to ensure
IWC management objectives were respected. In regard
to UNCLOS there was a demand to continue its work on
Annex 1 relating to highly migratory species. Monaco said
its main objective was to build bridges between the IWC
and the UN to ensure continuation of progress. Responding
to Japans concern on the use of the phrase without agreed
limits Monaco said that Article VIII did not provide a
ceiling on catch limits and so there could be no agreement.
At this point Monaco indicated it would continue to develop
its proposal with a view to finding a way forwards and the
Chair adjourned the debate for a short period so as to deal
with other items.
Upon returning to the debate, Monaco requested to hear
views from Contracting Parties on how to address the issue
of small cetacean conservation, and whether it should be
taken forward by UNCLOS using Annex I of the Convention
which listed highly migratory species or whether the issue
should be addressed at the IWC by adding about 40 species
to the Schedule of the ICRW.
New Zealand commented that the earlier interventions
from Japan, Norway and Iceland on how they saw the issue
being dealt with confirmed the fact that there was a serious
problem. New Zealand was pleased that Monaco had taken
account of initial concerns by issuing a revised document,
and said it was happy to continue working on this issue
going forwards.
Monaco recognised the support expressed by a number of
Contracting Governments and indicated it would establish,
on its own initiative, a non-IWC intersessional task force to
take the work forwards. The Chair thanked Monaco for its
proposal and suggested that any countries interested should
contact Monaco during the meeting breaks.
21. NGO Address
The Chair recalled that there had been several NGO
interventions during the meeting on specific Agenda items.
These interventions had taken place after all Contracting
Governments had spoken. Towards the end of the meeting
it was clear that additional time had become available for
NGOs to make a further address and the three separate
interventions are recorded here.
Eugene Lapointe of the IWMC World Conservation Trust
spoke about people in a meeting devoted to the management
and conservation of whales. He had been fortunate to spend
the first 12 years of his life in a wilderness where he had to
provide food for his family from hunting and fishing and
harvesting what nature was offering. Through this experience
he had developed an understanding of the pain and anguish
suffered by some peoples in the world. He said he was not
happy with the outcome of the meeting because Greenlands
60
request for ASW catch limits had been rejected. Equally he

was not happy that the appeal of the four small Japanese
communities had been denied once again, and he identified
with the pain felt by Greenland and Japan. Furthermore
he was unhappy with the quota allocation to the Russian
Federation, the USA and St Vincent and The Grenadines
because although they had received their quota he believed
that access to food was a basic right and it was demeaning
that proud people had to beg to exercise their culture and
traditions. He was unhappy that human rights were ignored
to the advantage of animal rights. He was unhappy when
wild animals were humanised and when humans were
demonised for making use of animals. In closing, IWMC
thanked the people of Panama for their warm hospitality and
hoped that human values would recover their place in the
field of international relations.
Samantha Dawes of Campaign Whale said that small
cetaceans represented the vast majority of whale species.
They faced many threats to their survival arising from
toxic pollution, entanglement in fishing gear and large
scale commercial and subsistence hunting. Sadly, these
small whales now represented some of the most critically
endangered species on Earth with populations and even
entire species reduced to a pitiful number of animals barely
clinging to existence. This year the Scientific Committee
report included strong recommendations to help save the
vaquita and Mauis dolphin. The baiji was tragically already
lost. Campaign Whale asked if there could be any greater
focus for the IWC than to help save critically endangered
species on the brink of being lost forever. At IWC/63 in 2011,
10 NGOs were able to contribute a total of 10,300 to the
Small Cetacean Voluntary Fund. This year Campaign Whale
and supporting organisations wished to thank Contracting
Governments for their generous contributions to the same
fund. The contributions allowed valuable scientific and
conservation work such as developing alternative fishing
gear in the vaquitas habitat. Campaign Whale recognised
the increasingly important work of the Sub-committee
on Small Cetaceans and in particular the critical status of
several small cetacean species and populations and it was
pleased to announce a further donation of 11,000 to the
Small Cetacean Voluntary Fund. This donation was made on
behalf of Campaign Whale, Cetacean Society International,
Humane Society International, International Fund for
Animal Welfare, Naturschutzbund International, OceanCare,
Whaleman Foundation, Windstar Foundation, Royal Society
for the Protection of Animals and WWF International.
The Green Association of Panama represented many
conservation-based NGOs and was pleased to be able to
speak before the close of the meeting. It hoped that the NGO
interventions that had been made had supported the debate
and decision making and requested that the opportunities
for NGOs to speak be implemented as permanent
practice. The Green Association of Panama celebrated the
Commissions work on non-lethal use of cetaceans and
thanked those Governments who had committed funds or
actions focusing on mitigating threats to cetaceans and their
habitats. Although it understood the value of consensus it
also recognised that the reintroduction of the voting system
was a positive influence on governance. Although the South
Atlantic Sanctuary had not been established it thanked the
proponents and supporters of the proposal and urged them to
continue working to make the Sanctuary a reality. It thanked
the Government and people of Panama and congratulated
the Chair on a successful meeting.
22. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

The Finance and Administration Committee met in
Panama on 28 June 2012. Donna Petrachenko (Australia)
chaired the meeting, which was attended by 33 Contracting
Governments. A summary of the Committees discussions
is included below and the full report is available at Annex J.
22.1 Meeting arrangements and procedures
22.1.1 Need for a Technical Committee
Report of the F&A Committee
The Chair of the F&A Committee indicated that the Technical

Committee had not met since IWC/51 in 1999. The question
of an on-going need for a Technical Committee was an issue
that the F&A Committee and then the Commission may
need to address in the context of broader discussions relating
to the Bureau.
22.1.2 Report of the Intersessional Group on Quorum

The F&A Committee had considered a range of options to

clarify the Commissions procedures relating to quorum and
a growing consensus had developed about a proposed series
of changes to Rule of Procedure B.1. In addition there was
extensive discussion on the need to link suspension of voting
rights to quorum, and one member had raised a question
about whether quorum was necessary to adjourn a meeting.
New Zealand, supported by the USA recalled that the

intersessional group was established because of the
problems experienced at IWC/63 in 2011. The group, which
was chaired by New Zealand, had made recommendations
which appeared initially to have consensus support, but
subsequently at the private Commissioners meeting
there were some countries that were not in favour of
making changes to the rule at this stage. New Zealand was
comfortable to leave the rule as it stands, if that was the
preference of the membership. But it was equally supportive
of making a change regarding when to apply the rule on
quorum as this would be a helpful clarification. However,
in New Zealands opinion the most important outcome of
the exercise had been to re-establish an understanding about
how the Commission should conduct its business.
Cyprus, supported by Switzerland and Monaco, spoke
on behalf of the EU member states party to the IWC to state
that the principle objective on the quorum issue should be
to ensure that the Commission operates under a clear set of
rules to avoid behaviour that brings the Commission into
disrepute. Cyprus accepted the need to determine quorum at
the time decisions are taken by the Commission, but it also
believed that those Contracting Governments who were not
entitled to vote as a consequence of non-payment of financial
contributions should logically also not count towards the
number of members required to constitute a quorum.
Japan, supported by Guinea, stated that the requirement
for quorum was on-going throughout the meeting but applied
especially at the point of decision making. Japan also stated
that suspension of voting rights did not mean suspension of
membership and so a member with a suspended vote should
be counted as a constituent member of the quorum.
Following discussion, the Chair noted that the rules
would be left unchanged although it may be necessary to
return to the discussion in the future. He also hoped that
it would be possible to handle the Commissions meetings
without the need for further clarification on quorum.
22.1.3 Report of the Intersessional Group on Biennial

Meetings and Establishment of a Bureau
The intersessional group had developed four discussion

documents, one of which included a checklist of actions
for moving to biennial meetings and establishing a Bureau.
Within the F&A Committee there was unanimous support
for moving to biennial meetings and accordingly the F&A
Committee recommended that the Commission should change
the frequency of its meetings to biennial, commencing with
the next meeting being held in 2014. This recommendation
was supported by advice from the Scientific Committee that
six year blocks for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch
limits would be safe, and a proposal from the Budgetary
Sub-committee for a two year budget. The F&A Committee
recommended that the Scientific Committee would continue
to meet on an annual basis in May or June and reiterated
the agreement from IWC/63 in 2011 that meetings of the
Scientific Committee and Commission should be separated
by a period of 100 days or longer.
The F&A Committee proposed the establishment of
a Bureau comprising the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Commission, the Chair of the F&A Committee and four
Commissioners representing a range of views and thematic
interests. The host government for the next Commission
meeting and the Secretary would also attend Bureau
meetings in an ex-officio capacity.
The Chair of the Commission would serve as the Chair
of the Bureau and may call upon Chairs of the Commissions
subsidiary bodies to participate in Bureau discussions as
appropriate. The Bureau would not be open to observers.
Its role would be to support the Commission by providing
advice to the Chair and the Secretariat on on-going
work programmes, especially in terms of implementing
Commission decisions at times when the Commission is not
in session. The Bureau will also assist in: (1) preparations
for meetings of the Commission and subsidiary bodies; (2)
reviewing the progress of work undertaken through Subcommittees; and (3) provision of support to the Chair during
Commission meetings. The Bureaus mandate would be
to assist with process management and it would not be a
decision making forum. It will not deal with substantive or
policy matters under the Convention as these are reserved
for the Commission. The Bureau may consider issues
relating to financial or administrative tasks within the scope
of the F&A Committee, but only in the context of making
recommendations to that Committee.
A small group comprised of the USA, Japan and St
Lucia had been tasked with finalising proposed changes to
the Rules of Procedure which were necessary to implement
these recommendations.
Switzerland, Cyprus (on behalf of EU member states party to

the IWC), the UK, Guinea, USA, Monaco, Palau, Argentina,
St Kitts and Nevis and Korea thanked the intersessional
group for its work and supported the proposed move to a
two yearly (biennial) cycle of meetings. Cyprus considered
that a more effective schedule of meetings would put the
IWC on a par with other multilateral agreements and that
the establishment of a Bureau was necessary to ensure
the smooth progress of Commission business during the
intersessional period. The UK highlighted the importance
of intersessional working in advance of IWC/65 and
indicated its intention to lead or participate in a number of
initiatives. Guinea supported the move as it would allow
the Scientific Committee to develop more detailed advice
61
and because it would help many countries overcome their

problems with arrears of payments. The USA noted that a
reduced meeting frequency would provide cost savings to
member governments and requested, since it was a member
of the Advisory Committee, that it wished to have a seat
on the Bureau. Argentina requested a seat on the Bureau
for a member of the Buenos Aires Group, and St Kitts and
Nevis requested a seat for the Caribbean countries. Korea
highlighted the need to adjust the length of service of the
Chair and Vice-Chair should the Commission move to a
biennial cycle. Following these interventions the Chair of
the F&A Committee confirmed that a drafting group was
working to refine detailed amendments to the Rules of
Procedure, and accordingly the Chair adjourned debate on
this item until the drafting groups output was ready.
Upon resuming the debate, the Chair of the F&A
Committee introduced the proposed changes to the Rules
of Procedure and Financial Regulations and highlighted the
following key items.
The majority of the changes altered the word annual
to biennial, and these changes occurred throughout the
document.
At Rule B (Meetings) a new item 3 was proposed which
read The Scientific Committee shall meet annually. Other
Committees and sub-groups shall meet biennially prior
to the meeting of the Commission. However this does not
preclude intersessional work by these Committees and
sub-groups from continuing.
Also at Rule B (Meetings) a new item 4 was proposed
which read The Bureau shall meet in those years in which
the Commission does not meet, and shall otherwise meet
as required to fulfil its functions in accordance with Rule
M.9.
At Rule F (Chair) the length of time for the term of office
of the Chair is changed to two years, and an additional
sentence was added which read The Chair is to serve
the Commission, and as such, shall serve in an individual
capacity and not represent the views of their Contracting
Government, when acting as Chair. Similar changes
were made to Rule G (Vice-Chair).
At Rule M (Committees) item 9 had key changes to
establish the Bureau which was proposed to comprise the
Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission, the Chair of the
F&A Committee and four Commissioners representing
a range of views and regional interests. Commissioners
were to be appointed to the Bureau for a period of two years
at biennial Commission meetings. The Commissioner for
the host Government of the next meeting would serve
in an ex-officio capacity. The Secretary would support
meetings of the Bureau. The Chair of the Commission
would serve as Chair of the Bureau and may call upon
Chairs of the Commissions sub-groups and Committees
to participate in Bureau discussions as appropriate. The
changes to Rule M also included a list of Bureau roles
which were to:
-
provide advice to the Chair and Secretariat on
implementing Commission decisions;
-assist and advise the Secretariat on administrative
and financial matters between meetings of the
Commission;
-assist in preparations for meetings of the Commission,
its sub-groups and Committees;
-to review the progress of work by the sub-groups and
Committees; and
-to provide support to the Chair during meetings of
the Commission as requested by the Chair.
62
The Chair of the F&A Committee concluded by stating

that, if adopted, these changes would move the Commission
to a biennial meeting cycle, would end the current Advisory
Committee, and would establish a Bureau.
South Africa noted that under the proposals the
Bureau would comprise the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Commission, the Chair of the F&A Committee and four
Commissioners representing a range of views and regional
interests. South Africa was unclear how regional interest
could work across four Commissioners and proposed
deleting the reference to regionality. St Kitts and Nevis
proposed that five Commissioners rather than four would
be appropriate in order to ensure balanced representation.
Norway noted that as currently drafted the Bureau was
also composed of three other Commissioners (the Chair,
Vice-Chair and Chair of F&A) making seven in total and
this gave an opportunity to establish the requested regional
balance. St Kitts and Nevis, supported by Ghana, responded
that a fifth Commissioner position was necessary in order
to accommodate representation from Africa. Ecuador
considered it was not necessary to raise the number of
members of the Bureau but requested that the phrase and
ensuring a regionally balanced representation should be
added to the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph
of Rule M.9. Monaco commented that it would be necessary
to appoint the additional four or five Commissioners after
the identity of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Chair of F&A
had been established so as not to replicate the interests
represented by these Commissioners. In addition Monaco
raised the question of how to proceed if there were more
Commissioners wishing to join the Bureau than places
available and whether it would be necessary to have a secret
ballot. South Africa clarified that it had proposed deleting
the reference to regionality because of the different regions
within the African continent and that one Commissioner
would be unable to represent each of the regional views
effectively.
Speaking in regard to the membership of the Bureau,
Israel noted that the host Government for the next meeting
would serve in an ex-officio capacity, and advised that the rule
should be altered to make clear that this was in addition to the
other four Commissioners already members of the Bureau.
Monaco suggested that this could be achieved by redrafting
the sentence to read In addition, the Commissioner for the
host government of the next meeting of the Commission will
serve in an ex-officio capacity for a period of two years.
Israel drew attention to the statement which said that the
role of the Bureau was to assist and advise the Secretariat
and suggested it was the other way around with the
Secretariat assisting the Bureau. Israel suggested that the
word assist should be deleted and the Chair of the F&A
Committee responded that this was agreeable. The Chair
confirmed this was acceptable.
Chile referred to the long discussions which had
taken place regarding the frequency of meetings for the
Conservation Committee and requested comments on this
point. The Chair of the F&A Committee responded that
the proposed rule changes indicated that the Scientific
Committee would continue to meet annually and the other
Committees would meet intersessionally during the two
year period as required. The outcomes of the preparatory
discussions had made clear that all of the subsidiary bodies
should be treated equally and therefore no Committee was
singled out except the Scientific Committee.
Chile also asked for a list of the unresolved tasks that
should be discussed before the implementation of the Bureau
or which should instead be taken over by the Bureau. The

Chair of the F&A Committee responded that the checklist
of actions had been prepared by the Secretariat during the
intersessional period and submitted to the F&A Committee
(IWC/2012/IGBB1). A number of those tasks had been
achieved, for example the setting of two year budgets.
St Lucia noted the existing wording of Rule of Procedure
F.1 which read The Chair shall remain in office until a
successor is elected and requested the addition of if he/
she agrees to do so. The Chair indicated this change was
agreeable.
Guinea requested translations into French and Spanish
be provided for the Bureau meetings.
St Kitts and Nevis said that the move to biennial
meetings may diminish the ability of developing countries
to pay their dues because payments were often made on a
basis of need or urgency, and the absence of a meeting each
year may reduce the perceived need to pay. It was possible
that countries would pay for both years immediately before
the biennial meeting rather than on an annual basis in order
to assist cash flow. Accordingly St Kitts and Nevis asked if
the time limit for charging interest on unpaid contributions
could be changed from 12 months (as at present) to 24
months.
St Kitts and Nevis also requested that the words above
the base rate quoted by the Commissions bankers on the day
be deleted. St Kitts and Nevis explained that an interest rate
of 2% would still provide incentive to pay without inflating
it by the base rate. Switzerland, supported by Australia,
recalled discussions in previous meetings where the interest
rate had been lowered considerably and expressed the need
for caution in reducing the rate further as it would remove
the incentive to pay and may not accurately reflect interest
rates. Switzerland also spoke as Chair of the Budgetary Subcommittee to state that the IWC finances were based upon
receiving annual financial contributions and extending the
timescale for charging interest from 12 to 24 months may
create cash flow issues for the Secretariat. Switzerland urged
Contracting Governments to retain the current financial
arrangements as they reflected economic realities and
guaranteed the smooth running of the Secretariat.
At this point the Chair again adjourned the debate to
allow the drafting group to consider the changes which had
been proposed. Upon re-opening the debate the Chair of the
F&A Committee described the following additional changes
to the proposed alterations to the Rules of Procedure and
Financial Regulations, which she hoped the Commission
would be able to agree to.
The incorporation of the suggested changes to Paragraphs
F and G (Chair and Vice-Chair) so that it reads The
Chair shall, however, remain in office until a successor
is elected if he/she agrees to do so.
At paragraph 7 of Rule M.9 in relation to the interests
of the Commissioners comprising the Bureau the word
regional was removed so that the Rule would read
.and four Commissioners representing a range of
views and interests.
Also at paragraph 7 of Rule M.9 the length of service
on the Bureau for the Commissioner of the next host
Government was clarified by the addition of for a period
of two years to the end of the fourth sentence of the first
paragraph.
In relation to the functions given to the Bureau, the
word assist was removed from the second function
so that the Rule would read Advise the Secretariat on
administrative and financial matters
With regard to Financial Regulation F.1 the drafting

group proposed that interest be added to outstanding
payments if that payment had not been received by the
Commission within 24 months of the due date as opposed
to 12 months as previously. This change was made in
the recognition that funds would still be due annually
and that this would ensure the effective operation of the
Secretariat.
The drafting group proposed to retain the wording
regarding the rate of interest to be charged as 2% above the
base rate quoted by the Commissions bankers on the day.
Ecuador indicated that the changes proposed by the
drafting group were acceptable but also recommended the
inclusion of the words with a view to ensuring inclusive and
balanced representation to the end of the sentence describing
the composition of the Bureau at Rule M.9. Ghana and
Cte dIvoire asked for clarification of what was intended
by the proposed use of the phrase views and interests and
whether it would include regional representation. The Chair
of the F&A Committee clarified that the intention was to
seek representation of the range of views on conservation
and management of whaling held by various delegations as
well as geographic interests, and that the word was removed
on the understanding that the F&A Committee would be
instructed to work intersessionally on the application of
the meaning of regional in this context. Panama indicated
its support for the proposals on the understanding that the
Bureau would have a balanced membership.
St Kitts and Nevis repeated its request for the words
above the base rate quoted by the Commissions bankers
on the day to be removed from the end of the first sentence
of Financial Regulation F.1 dealing with Arrears of
Contributions. St Kitts and Nevis supported by Ghana and
the Republic of Guinea explained that the base rate was
unpredictable and that it wished to have a greater certainty
in the amounts it owed to international organisations. It
commented that if the Secretariat was operating an overdraft
facility and thus incurring charges because of the failure of
Contracting Governments to pay dues then the charge was
appropriate, but in the absence of the Secretariat operating
an overdraft that the level of charge should be reduced to
2% without the addition of the base rate. St Kitts and Nevis
emphasised the seriousness of the issue for developing
countries.
The Chair of the F&A Committee clarified that the
procedure of charging interest at 2% over the bank base
rate had previously been in place prior to discussions on a
biennial meeting cycle and so the current proposal did not
ask Commissioners to agree to anything new in relation to
the way interest was charged on arrears of contributions.
New Zealand said that the rule applied at the IWC on
interest charges for overdue payments was no different to
the procedures used at other international organisations, and
also stated that as the proposal had been raised for the first
time during IWC/64 that there had not been adequate time
to consider it. Cyprus noted that the unpredictably of the
payments as a result of interest rate fluctuations was a result
of Contracting Governments not paying on time.
St Kitts and Nevis moved that the proposal be amended
so as to delete the words above the base rate quoted by the
Commissions bankers on that date. Accordingly, under
St Kitts and Nevis proposal the first sentence of Financial
Regulation F.1 would read:
1.
If a Contracting Governments annual payments have not been

received by the Commission within 24 months of the due date
referred to under Regulation E.2 compound interest shall be added on
63
the anniversary of that day and each subsequent anniversary thereafter

at the rate of 2%. above the rate quoted by the Commissions bankers
on the day.
The Chair thanked St Kitts and Nevis for its proposal and
requested the Commission to decide on the proposal through
a vote. The vote received 15 yes votes, 41 no votes and 2
abstentions. Accordingly the proposal was defeated.
Following the vote, St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent
and The Grenadines, supported by Palau, said that there was
great inequality with the IWC and that it was important to
ensure that developing countries were able to participate
fully in the organisations work. St Kitts and Nevis indicated
that it would support the consensus adoption of the proposals
as put forwards by the drafting group.
The Chair then asked if the document proposed by the
drafting group could be adopted by consensus. Seeing no
disagreements the document was adopted.
22.1.4 Report of the Working Group on the Role of
Observers at Meetings of the Commission
The Working Group on the Role of Observers had met

in Panama on the 27 June (see Annex K). There had
been a wide ranging discussion which concluded with a
recommendation to the private Commissioners meeting that
the total minimum time for NGO interventions was to be 30
minutes. The Working Group noted that 30 minutes over five
days was a short period of time, and that primacy must be
given to contracting parties. It would be at the discretion of
the Chair how to use the time, or to show some additional
flexibility. The Chair of the F&A Committee observed that
IWC/64 had been conducted according to this guidance.
The USA and Mexico supported increased participation

by observers, as it believed that increased transparency
would give a greater legitimacy and because observers
could provide a beneficial contribution to the Commissions
deliberations. It noted that the process used at IWC/64 of
allowing observers to speak under various agenda items
after Contracting Governments and as time allows had
worked very well. The USA believed this to be a positive and
important step forward and it supported providing observers
with greater opportunities to participate on each agenda
item for which they may have input. It recommended that
the IWC use this as the first step towards the ultimate goal of
further increasing observer participation at future meetings
in line with other inter-governmental organisations.
to the IWC and was convinced that undertaking steps to
improve governance would result in beneficial increases in
protection and improved management practises. It would
also sustain and reinforce a spirit of partnership among
members as they worked to realise common objectives.
Cyprus welcomed follow up action based on the experience
of practises followed at IWC/64.
Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and
Brazil supported a greater role for observer organisations, as
it would allow them to contribute knowledge and increase
the transparency of the Commission. Chile, Argentina
Ecuador and Uruguay highlighted the increased openness to
working with NGOs within their own countries. Uruguay
thanked the organisations and countries who had made
voluntary contributions to the Commissions work which
had reaffirmed the level of trust in the Commission. Panama,
Brazil and India reiterated that the 30 minutes allowance
over the five day duration should be considered a minimum
64
and it should be expanded to the extent possible within

Plenary sessions. This should include expansion of the time
allowance and also extension of the number of agenda items
in which participation was requested. In addition Panama
noted that the observers called to speak should reflect a
balanced point of view which took account of regional
distributions.
France, supported by Monaco, stated that NGO participation was very important as it enriched discussions. It
commented that observers had been very responsible in
their contributions by respecting time limits and balancing
different views. France considered the compromise at
IWC/64 was a starting point for wider discussions on the
participation of civil society organisations. Monaco said
it would be useful to consider a substantial increase in the
time of the interventions as the present system of 30 minutes
allowed only between 1-2% of the total time available.
Monaco suggested the figure should be a minimum of 5%
so that delegations could take note of and be guided by the
interventions. St Vincent and The Grenadines agreed that
civil society should contribute, but noted that the system
of block representation amongst Contracting Parties often
gave rise to repetitious interventions which reduced the time
available for NGO input. Antigua and Barbuda, supported
by St Kitts and Nevis, recognised the role of civil society
organisations in governance issues but considered that the
existing time allocation was sufficient for the time being as
the IWC was an organisation of Contracting Governments
and NGOs were able to advance their agendas by working
domestically within their own countries. It also highlighted
the need to ensure that NGOs satisfied all domestic and
international requirements for registration.
Japan shared the importance of allowing civil society
participation within the time available. Priority must be
given to Contracting Parties first, as it had been during the
previous days discussions where one NGO was unable to
speak because of time constraints. Japan also reiterated that
NGO participation had to be at the discretion of the Chair so
as to ensure a smooth and efficient discussion.
The Chair considered that the different NGO speakers
who had taken the floor at IWC/64 had provided valuable
contributions to the discussions. He said that developing
NGO participation was part of an on-going process which
could be moved on by a willingness to listen to discussion
from both sides of the debate.
22.1.5 Report of the Working Group on Provision of
Assistance to Governments of Limited Means to Participate
in the Commissions work
The Working Group on Provision of Assistance to

Governments of Limited Means to Participate in the
Commissions Work had developed consensus support for
the establishment of a voluntary fund. However problems
continued to exist in developing agreeable wording for a
Resolution which would ensure that the proposed action
was compatible with Article III.5 of the Convention. The
Chair of the F&A Committee reported that further work and
discussions were needed to resolve this issue, and noted that
the Working Group had continued to operate during IWC/64
with a view to presenting a revised proposal.
St Lucia introduced document IWC/64/18 which was a

proposed Resolution on the Creation of a Fund to Strengthen
the Capacity of Governments of Limited Means to Participate
in the Work of the IWC. St Lucia drew attention to several

other Conventions which had a similar Article to that of
III.5 of the ICRW (1946) particularly the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Indian Ocean
Tuna Commission (IOTC). St Lucia noted that 44 of the
IWC Contracting Governments were also members of either
IATTC or IOTC. In recent years these Commissions had
agreed consensus Resolutions which permitted the creation
of specific funds to assist the full participation of developing
countries, and these funds were used, inter alia, to permit the
attendance of developing countries at Commission meetings
and meetings of the Commissions subsidiary bodies.
Recognising the high degree of overlapping membership
between the IWC and the other conventions where such
measures had been adopted, St Lucia presumed that it would
be possible to seek agreement for the adoption of similar
measures at the IWC.
St Lucia, Japan, Palau, Kiribati, Korea, St Vincent
and The Grenadines and Tanzania supported the proposed
Resolution. Japan introduced document IWC/64/19 which
was information provided to facilitate discussion on the
provision of assistance to Governments of limited means. It
noted the similarity of the IWCs Convention with that of the
IATTC and the IOTC, and drew attention to a recent IATTC
meeting where the European Union had donated $50,000
to a voluntary fund to help developing countries participate
at the IATTC meeting. In addition, the IOTC already
operated a voluntary fund to support developing countries.
Japan noted that of the 29 countries in the IWCs lowest
capacity-to-pay group (Group One), ten were not present at
IWC/64 in 2012 and 15 had not participated at IWC/63 in
2011. Japan noted the need for all countries to be able to
attend meetings and urged support for the draft Resolution,
particularly from those Contracting Governments who were
also members of IATTC and IOTC. Palau said that the
Resolution would: (1) achieve the objective of Resolution
2011-1; (2) recommend a procedure for disbursing funds and
ensure compatibility with Article III.5 of the Convention;
and (3) allow Governments of limited means to participate
in the Commissions work. Kiribati emphasised that the low
attendance at Commission meetings by Group One countries
provided a full justification for the Commission to consider
and support the proposed Resolution. Korea supported the
proposed Resolution and said that as well as ensuring full
participation from developing countries it would also ensure
transparency on the future of the IWC.
The Russian Federation highlighted the needs of
countries with transitional economies and said that CITES
provided support not just for developing countries but also
for countries with transitional economies. Accordingly the
Russian Federation requested that the proposed Resolution
be amended to include transitional economies and indicated
that it would support the Resolution if this amendment could
be made.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of the EU member states
party to the IWC and recognised the importance of
effective participation of developing country Contracting
Governments in the work of the IWC. The establishment
of a voluntary fund for that purpose would reflect practice
under other multi-lateral agreements where the EU and its
member states were strong donors. Nevertheless Cyprus
stressed the need to give due regard to Article III.5 which
required that the Contracting Governments pay their own
costs. It considered that the wording of the article reflected
the time of its drafting and would not have found its way into
contemporary international treaties. Nevertheless, it was the

rule in force and as such Cyprus could not support wording
that would be in direct contradiction to the Convention as was
the case of the fifth bullet point of the proposed Resolution.
Cyprus recalled that the intersessional working group did
not tackle issues related to Article III.5. However Cyprus
believed that it was important for the results of projects and
information to be disseminated and accordingly it suggested
replacing the fifth bullet point of the Resolution with:
Reporting at meetings of the Commission or subsidiary
bodies on the above activities for which funding will be
provided. If such a change was to be made Cyprus would
be pleased to support the Resolution.
Following these interventions the Chair adjourned
the debate briefly to allow informal consultations. Upon
resuming the debate, St Lucia reported that it had not been
possible to come to an agreement but that the group had
agreed to continue working intersessionally on the issue.
The Chair thanked St Lucia and acknowledged that there
was support for the upcoming intersessional work.
22.1.6 Review of the work of the Technical Advisor
assigned to the Secretariat
In 2011 the USA proposed the secondment of a Technical

Advisor (David Mattila) to the Secretariat so as to progress
work on reducing conflicts with cetaceans, especially
relating to large whale entanglement response and reduction
of ship strikes. The F&A Committee thanked Dr Mattila
for his work; expressed appreciation for the progress made
and thanked the USA for supporting the financial costs. The
Committee noted the possibility of extending the secondment
and hoped that this would be achieved.
The USA thanked Contracting Governments for their

support for the secondment and indicated that they were
hoping to be able to extend the duration. Mexico, Costa
Rica and Argentina thanked the USA and Dr Mattila for
the work achieved and expressed support for extension of
the secondment dependent upon obtaining the necessary
resources in the forthcoming months.
22.2 The Commissions website
22.2.1 Report of the Finance and Administration Committee
The Chair of the F&A Committee reported that the
Secretariat had introduced the pre-launch version of the
new IWC website which was available for review. It had
been redesigned to improve navigation and ensure clearer
communication through the use of a new font and colour
scheme. The website also included improved access to
previous meeting documents and scanned copies of historic
Annual Reports and Chairs Reports of meetings. The
Secretariat indicated their intention to continue to develop
the site post launch including the establishment of an
international domain name address. Members of the F&A
Committee were invited to provide feedback and this had
included a lot of very positive responses. Some questions
regarding general functioning had been discussed, and the
Secretariat reported that translations had been established for
17 of the most popular pages on the old website. Proposals
for further translation to address the trilingual nature of the
site should be referred to the Budgetary Sub-committee.
65
22.3 Operational effectiveness

The Chair of the F&A Committee recalled that at IWC/63
the Commission adopted Resolution 2011-1 which inter
alia resolved to include the effectiveness of operations of
the IWC as a regular Item on the Commissions Agenda.
The F&A Committee recognised that the move to biennial
meetings would increase operational effectiveness and that
other proposals for improving effectiveness linked closely to
Item 2.2.4 on cost savings measures.
Discussions under this item are recorded at Item 22.4.2.
22.4 Cost saving measures
The F&A Committee considered document IWC/64/F&A11
which focused on reduction of freight charges and increased
use of electronic documents. The Committee thanked the
Secretary for efforts to reduce paper consumption and
the associated move towards web-based distribution of
documents. It emphasised the necessity of ensuring that
meeting documents distributed through the website were
clearly labelled with the time and date of uploading, and
for appropriate back-up measures to be in place in case of
failure of electronic equipment.
The F&A Committee concluded that the agenda items on
operational effectiveness and cost savings measures should
be combined. The USA agreed to convene an intersessional
working group to take forward continued discussion on the
combined item.
Cyprus spoke on behalf of EU states party to the IWC and
recalled that last year the IWC had taken some small but
important steps towards the governance improvement.
Noting that no organisation can or should stand still Cyprus
said that a continued review of effectiveness was important
to ensure consistency with current international practice.
It therefore welcomed further work to review the IWCs
effectiveness. The UK agreed that the move to biennial
meetings would provide an opportune moment to conduct
a review of IWC processes to ensure that they are fit for
purpose, in line with best practice and allow the IWC to
function effectively. The UK supported the continuation of
intersessional work and said it would be happy to participate
in the working group.
23. FORMULA FOR CALCULATING
CONTRIBUTIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
23.1 Report of the Finance and Administration
Committee
The Chair of the F&A Committee recalled that the interim
formula for calculating contributions had been in place for
a long time. This year the Budgetary Sub-committee had
reviewed the issue and, based upon their recommendation,
the F&A Committee agreed that the word interim should
be removed from the name of the measure.
St Vincent and The Grenadines indicated its satisfaction that
the formula for calculating contributions was now regarded
as permanent rather than interim. It said that the formula
was important in bringing fairness and equity to the way
contributions were calculated.
66
24. REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL

CORRESPONDENCE GROUP ON
STRENGTHENING IWC FINANCING
the Commission, NGO observer fees to be 580 for the first

observer and 285 for the second observer for the 2014
meeting.

Committee
The Chair of the F&A Committee referred to the report of
the intersessional correspondence group, which contained
a series of 11 recommendations to support the shared goal
of rebuilding and maintaining healthy whale populations
and to inject discipline into the way the IWC conducted
its financial business. The work was intended to solve the
IWCs financial constraints by accessing external funding
for various purposes. Of the 11 recommendations, the first
three were intended to improve accounting transparency and
improve decision making. The remaining recommendations
were aimed at:

The Commission adopted the budget as recommended by
the F&A Committee. Spain asked whether the Secretariat
foresaw any possible change in the grouping of countries
according to their capacity to pay and the Secretary
responded that the assessment of which countries fell into
each payment group would be undertaken in August prior to
issue of invoices for the forthcoming year.
(1) creating the environment for fundraising;

(2) establishing and eligibility and approvals process for
projects; and
(3) establishing a dedicated fund to receive external
donations.
The decision taken in 2011 to separate the meetings of the

Scientific Committee and Commission by a period of 100
days or longer is likely to lead to a situation whereby the
Commission meets in September or October 2014, which
is after the close of the current financial year on 31 August.
Accordingly, the F&A Committee endorsed a Budgetary
Sub-committee recommendation that the Commission
should change its financial year to 1 January-31 December,
effective from 2015 onwards. The F&A Committee also
recommended that the Secretary should continue to operate
the Commissions finances at a level of expenditure
consistent with the previous financial year during the two
month period after the end of the agreed budget and prior to
the next Commission meeting in 2014. The Secretary was
asked to develop a series of options for presentation to the
2014 meeting for allowing Contracting Governments to pay
the charges associated with the four month bridging period
from 1 September to 31 December 2014, and that these
options should include spreading the charges over future
years.
The Chair of the F&A Committee noted that further work

was necessary in order to prepare a Resolution on this
subject which would be presented to the next Commission
meeting.
There were no discussions under this item. The Commission
noted the report of the F&A Committee on this Item and
endorsed its recommendations.
25. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BUDGETS AND
OTHER MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE
BUDGETARY SUB-COMMITTEE
25.1 Review of Provisional Financial Statement
2011/2012
Following review by the Budgetary Sub-committee, the
Finance and Administration Committee recommended that
the Commission approve the provisional financial statement
and adopt it subject to audit following the close of the
financial year on 31 August 2012. The F&A Committee
also recommended that a standing item be added to the
Budgetary Sub-committees agenda to report the length of
time served by the Commissions auditor and to reconfirm
their appointment for the following annual or biennial period
as appropriate.
The F&A Committee noted that total unpaid debts
now amounted to 547,000 and it recommended that the
Secretary presented a review of the Financial Regulations
to the next Budgetary Sub-committee meeting outlining the
additional measures that could be taken to assist Contracting
Governments in arrears of payments.
25.2 Consideration of future budgets, 2012/2013 and
2013/2014
The F&A Committee endorsed the Budgetary Subcommittees recommendation that the future budget
scenarios contained in document IWC/64/7 be adopted by
25.3 Other
25.3.1 Changes to the timing of the Commissions financial
year
25.3.2 Budgetary Sub-committee operations

The Chair of the F&A Committee noted that there are two
open seats on the Sub-committee and urged Contracting
Governments to come forwards.
25.3.3 Recommendation from the ASW Sub-committee

The F&A Committee noted a recommendation from the
ASW Sub-committee to consider establishing a voluntary
fund at the next Commission meeting to support work
associated with the management of aboriginal subsistence
whaling. There are a number of funds currently operating
for a range of issues including small cetaceans, conservation
management plans etc., and therefore this proposal would
create an additional, separate fund.
25.3.4 Voluntary fund for Conservation Management Plans

The Chair of the Conservation Committee drew attention to
the guidelines agreed by the Conservation Committee for
allocating money from the voluntary fund for Conservation
Management Plans. Consistent with these guidelines the

Conservation Committee recommended the approval of
funding for the period 2011-13 of up to 50,000 for the South
West Atlantic Southern Right Whale CMP and 25,000 for
the Western Gray Whale CMP. The Committee had been
advised that no funding support was required for the Eastern
South Pacific Right Whale CMP at the current time.
26. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE FINANCE

AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
26.1 Chair of the F&A Committee
The Commission elected, by consensus, Ms Donna
Petrachenko (Australia) for a second three year term as
Chair of the F&A Committee.
26.2 Adoption of the Finance and Administration
Committee report
The Commission adopted the report of the F&A Committee
and endorsed all recommendations.
27. DATE AND PLACE OF FORTHCOMING
MEETINGS
The Commission accepted an offer from Government of
the Republic of Korea to host the Scientific Committee
67
meeting in 2013. There were no offers to host the Scientific

Committee meeting in 2014 or the Commission meeting in
2014.
28. Bureau
Following agreement under Agenda Item 22.1.3, the
Advisory Committee was disbanded and replaced by the
Bureau. The Commissioners from the USA, Panama, Ghana
and Japan were elected by consensus to the four open
seats on the Bureau. Thus the membership of the Bureau
comprised the Chair (St Lucia), the Vice-Chair (Belgium),
the Chair of the F&A Committee (Australia) and the USA,
Panama, Ghana and Japan.
29. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS AND REQUIRED
ACTIONS
The Chair noted that the Secretariat had posted press
releases on the IWC website at the end of each day of the
Plenary. In addition, a Status of the Agenda document
showing decisions taken under each item and associated
voting records was available for download from the IWC/64
documents website. A comprehensive summary of decisions
and required actions is provided at the beginning of this
report.
30. OTHER MATTERS
The meeting closed at 17.50 on 6 July 2012.
68
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex A
Annex A
Delegates and Observers Attending the 64th Annual Meeting
(C) Commissioner; (AC) Alternate Commissioner; (I) Interpreter; (S) Support staff
Antigua and Barbuda

Joanne Massiah (AC)
Argentina
Victor Marzari (AC)
Miguel Iguez (AC)
Australia
Donna Petrachenko (C)
Tony Burke (AC)
Chris Schweizer (AC)
Nick Gales (AC)
Peter Komidar (AC)
Michelle Evans
Victoria Wadley
Sandy Jacobson
Stephanie Ierino
Darryl Watkins
Pam Eiser
Alexia Wellbelove
Kirsty McNeil
Austria
Andrea Nouak (C)
Michael Stachowitsch (AC)
Belgium
Frederic Chemay (C)
Fabian Ritter
Benin
Jean-Baptiste Degbey (C)
Brazil
Marcos Pinta Gama (C)
Carlos Hugo Suarez Sampaio
Paula Morales Pereira (S)
Mariana Horta Vieira de Miranda (S)
Cambodia
Ing Try (AC)
Chile
Jose Fernandez (AC)
Guillermo Silva
Barbara Galletti
Costa Rica
Ana Lorena Guevara Fernandez (C)
Eugenia Arguedas Montezuma (AC)
Jenny Asch Corrales
Ricardo Meneses (I)
Cte dIvoire
Denis Kouakou-Phieny (C)
Cyprus
Myrofora Hadjichristoforou (C)
Andreas Demetropoulos (AC)
Savvas Michaelides
Chariklia Mavronicola (S)
Maria Marotta (S)
Aikaterini-Zoi Varfi (S)
Czech Republic
Jii Havlk (C)
Denmark
le Samsing (C)
Gitte Hundahl (AC)
Amalie Jessen (AC)
Maj Friis Munk (AC)
Agathe Fontaine
Nette Levermann
Lars Witting
Leif Fontaine
Martin Mennecke
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez (AC)
Ecuador
Daniel Ortega Pachero (C)
Gustavo Iturralde (AC)
Jorge Samaniego Rivera
Estonia
Kadri Alasi (AC)
Finland
Penina Blankett (C)
China, Peoples Republic of

Fan Xiangguo (AC)
Shi Wuhong
France
Jean-Philippe Gavois (C)
Martine Bigan (AC)
Vincent Ridoux
Colombia
Sandra Bessudo (C)
Alejandra Torres (AC)
Giannina Santiago Cabarcas
Gabon
Guy Anicet Rerambyath (C)
Lee White
Germany
Walter Duebner (C)
Lutz Friedrichsen (AC)
Gerhard Adams
Ghana
Mike Akyeampong (C)
Grenada
Justin Rennie (AC)
Guinea Bissau
Oscar Balde (C)
Naula Fortes Cabral
Guinea, Republic of
Amadou Telivel Diallo (AC)
Iceland
Johann Gudmundsson (C)
Asta Einarsdttir (AC)
Gisli Vkingsson (AC)
Kristjan Loftsson
India
Ashish Kumar Srivastava (C)
Vivek Saxena (AC)
Ireland
John Fitzgerald (C)
Israel
Esther Efrat-Smilg (C)
Italy
Plinio Conte (AC)
Caterina Fortuna (AC)
Saverio Rosini
Francesca Granata
Japan
Kenji Kagawa (C)
Kiyoshi Katsuyama (AC)
Akima Umezawa (AC)
Mitsunori Okamoto
Takamaro Fukuoka
Ryuji Kasai
Tomoaki Nakao
Hiroshi Sekitani
Kazutaka Sangen
Katsutoshi Mihara
Yoshiichi Shimomichi
Chikao Kimura
Takaaki Sakamoto
Shinji Hiruma
Akiko Muramoto
Tsuyoshi Koga
Tomio Miyashita
Kayo Ohmagari
Gabriel Gomez Diaz
Dan Goodman
Ikuo Mizuki
Shuji Goto
Masato Iida
Kazuhiro Fujii
Yoshinori Nishino
Nobuhiko Tajima
Emi Onda
Nana Fushimi
Chieko Nishimura
Keiichi Morinaga
Yurika Shibamoto
Kiyomi Ito (I)
Keiko Murata (I)
Yoko Yamakage (I)
New Zealand
Gerard van Bohemen (C)
Karena Lyons (AC)
Louise Chilvers
Kiribati
Reteta Rimon Nikuata (C)
Panama
Toms Guardia (C)
Giovanni Lauri Carretti
Margarita Zurita
Hector Guzman
Zuleika Pinzon
Jose Julio Casas
Malena Sarlo
Yira Jaramillo Regna
Republic of Korea
Joon-Suk Kang (C)
In-gu Kang (AC)
Jeongseok Park (AC)
Yong-Rock An (AC)
Du Hae An (AC)
Hyun-Jin Park
Laos
Bounkhouang Khambounheuang (C)
Luxembourg
Pierre Gallego (AC)
Mauritania
Azza Ahmed Cheikh Ould Jedou (C)
Mexico
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho (C)
Alejandra Maria Gabriela BolognaZubikarai
Yolanda Alanis Pasini
Rodrigo Daniel Mendivil Ocampo (I)
Monaco
Frederic Briand (C)
Mongolia
Tserendash Damdin (C)
Jalbuu Choinkhor (I)
Morocco
Abdelouahed Benabbou (C)
Yassine Elaroussi (AC)
Nauru
Jarden Kephas (AC)
Netherlands
Marie-Jose Jenniskens (C)
Peter Bos (AC)
Patrick Brandt (AC)
Norway
le-David Stenseth (C)
Einar Tallaksen (AC)
Kathrine Ryeng
Hild Ynnesdal
Lars Walle
Egil en
Truls Soly
Oman
Abdullah Al Balushi (AC)
Republic of Palau
Victorio Uherbelau (C)
Peru
German Vera Esquivel (AC)
Alejandra Ximena Paz Ramos (AC)
Elisa Goya
Poland
Monika Lesz (C)
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko (C)
Igor Mikhno (AC)
Ludmila Kasatkina (S)
Ludmila Golembievskaya (S)
Alexey Ottoy (S)
Yuriy Tototto (S)
Olga Etylin (I)
Masha Vorontsova (I)
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Daven Joseph
Saint Lucia
Jeannine Compton-Antoine (C)
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Edwin Snagg (C)
Raymond Ryan (AC)
Slovenia
Andrej Bibic (C)
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen (C)
Ed Couzens
Spain
Carmen Asencio (C)
Sweden
Bo Fernholm (C)
Claes Pile (AC)
Switzerland
Bruno Mainini (C)
Martin Krebs (AC)
Tanzania
Geofrey Nanyaro (C)
Togo
Kossi Maxo Sedzro (C)
Tuvalu
Nelesone Panapasi (C)
UK
Nigel Gooding (C)
Richard Benyon (AC)
Nicola Clarke (AC)
James Gray (AC)
Jolyon Thomson (AC)
Beatriz Roel (AC)
Anju Sharda
Louise Savill
Mark Simmonds
Jennifer Lonsdale
Michael John Holloway (S)
Ariel Perez (S)
Clive Hughes (S)
Simon Stannard (S)
USA
Douglas DeMaster (C)
Roger Eckert (AC)
Elizabeth Phelps (AC)
Russell Smith (AC)
Ryan Wulff (AC)
Melissa Andersen
Keith Benes
Robert Brownell
Michael Tillman
Taryn Kiekow
Michael Lawrence
George Noongwook
Rollie Schmitten
Ira New Breast (S)
Mike Gosliner (S)
Allison Reed (S)
Connie Barclay (S)
Peter Jones (S)
Ryland Bowechop (S)
Brian Gruber (S)
DJ Schubert (S)
Bob King (S)
Bill Munten (S)
Stephanie Moreland (S)
Charlotte Brower (S)
Ann Renker (S)
Jonathan Scordino (S)
Greig Arnold (S)
Keith Johnson (S)
Eugene Brower (S)
69
70
Uruguay
Francisco Purificatti (C)
Carlos Rodriguez Brianza
Gimena Hernandez
INTERPRETERS
Cynthia Diez Menk
Elizabeth Lewis
Letitcia Saenz
Schhrazade Matallah-Salah
Mohammed Bennis
Leila Safi
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Debra Palka (Chair)
Toshihide Kitakado (Vice-Chair)
SECRETARIAT
Simon Brockington
Cherry Allison
Greg Donovan
Mark Tandy
Julie Creek
Stella Duff
Sandra Holdsworth
Andrea Cooke
Jessica Rowley
Brendan Miller
Sue Burkett
NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES
Canada
Barry Green
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANISATION OBSERVERS
CCAMLR
Bo Fernholm
COMHAFAT/ATLAFCO
Hachim El Ayoubi
Masaki Oikawa
Abdellah Regragui (I)
Comisin Permanente del Pacfico
Sur (CPPS)
Fernando Flix
European Union
Franois Wakenhut
Jill Hanna
NAMMCO
Hild Ynnesdal
SPAW-RAC
Gaelle Vandersarren
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex A
NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANISATIONs
Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission
Harry Brower
Johnny Aiken
Merlin Koonooka
Isaac Nukapigak
Robert Suydam
Jessica Lefevre
Earl Comstock
Edward Itta
Charlie Hopson
Craig George
Jenny Evans
Francisco Esparza
Randy Hoffbeck
Elsie Itta
Marietta Aiken
Lucy Nukapigak
Shannon Esparza
Eric Stafford
All Japan Seamens Union
Kenji Takahashi
Hideo Kon
American Cetacean Society
Cheryl McCormick
Animal Welfare Institute
Susan Millward
Susan Fisher
Kate OConnell
Association of Traditional Marine
Mammal Hunters of Chukotka
(ATMMHC)
Eduard Rypkhirgin
Eduard Zdor
Olga Ipatova
Asociacin Verde de Panam
(ASVEPA)
Gabriel Despaigne
Biodiversity Action Network East
Asia (BANEA)
Ayako Okubo
Yasuhiro Sanada
Blue Voice.Org
Hardy Jones
Deborah Cutting
Jeff Friedman
Carlos Yaipen-Llanos
Campaign Whale
Andy Ottoway
Samantha Dawes
Geert Drieman
Elleke van Renesse
Center of Conservation and

Ecodevelopment of Saman Bay
and its Environment - CEBSE
Pamela Lamelas
Augusto Gonzalez
Centro de Conservacion Cetacea
Elsa Cabrera
Jose Truda Palazzo Jr.
Maria Clara Jimenez
Javier Rodriquez
Marcello Hernandez
Cetacean Society International
Heather Rockwell
Conservacin de Mamferos
Marinos de Mxico A.C.
(Comarino)
Mercedes Anzures Aguilar
Dolphin Connection
Deborah Adams
Paul Spong
Helena Symonds
Dolphin and Whale Action
Network
Nanami Kurasawa
Earth Island Institute
Mark Palmer
Eastern Caribbean Coalition
for Environmental Awareness
(ECCEA)
Marlon Mills
Louise Mitchell Joseph
Paul Lewis
Environmental Investigation
Agency
Clare Perry
Fluke Foundation
Mary Whitney
Fundacion Cethus
Marta Hevia
Global Guardian Trust
Toshikazu Miyamoto
Jun Akamine
Greenpeace International
Phil Kline
Miko Schwartzman
John Frizell
Green Vegans
Will Anderson
Toni Frohoff
Tami Drake
Humane Society International

Rebecca Regnery
Kitty Block
Naomi Rose
Bernard Unti
Grettel Delgadillo
Instituto Baleia Jubarte
Marcia Engel
Mariana Almeida
Instituto de Conservacion de
Ballenas
Roxana Schteinbarg
Carolina Andrade Gastambide
Cristina Castro
International Fund for Animal
Welfare
Patrick Ramage
Clare Sterling
Naoko Funahashi
Robbie Marsland
Elizabeth Allgood
Ralf Sonntag
Matthew Collis
Vassili Papastavrou
Jean Claude Bouvier
Japan Whaling Association

Konomo Kubo
Ichiro Wada
Yoshihiro Takagi
Kunikazu Shimamoto
Seiji Ohsumi
Hayato Sakurai
Masaya Inoue
Junichi Miki
Tetsuya Omotani
Komei Wani
Naoya Tanikawa
Japan Small-Type Whaing
Association
Chikao Kimura
NOAH
Siri Martinsen
Norwegian Society for Protection
of Animals
Tanya Cross
OceanCare
Sigrid Lueber
International Transport Workers

Federation
Chikimasa Ohkoshi
Pro Wildlife
Sandra Altherr
IWMC World Conservation Trust

Eugene Lapointe
Gavin Carter
Society for the Conservation of

Marine Mammals, Danish Section
Birgith Sloth
71
Smithsonian Tropical Research

Institute
Juan Mate
Te Ohu Kaimoana
Matiu Te Rei
Peter Douglas
Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Society
Vanesa Tossenberger
Carolina Cassani
Laura Doehring
Fernando Trujillo
Whaleman International Ltd
Jeff Pantukhoff
Whales Alive
Mick McIntyre
Windstar
Nancy Azzam
World Society for the Protection of
Animals
Joanna Toole
Claire Bass
Marcela Vargas
WWF International
Wendy Elliott
Alona Rivord
Leigh Henry
Heather Sohl
Aimee Leslie
Mamadou Diallo
72
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex B
Annex B
Agenda
1.
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

1.1 Election of Chair
1.2 Election of Vice-Chair
2.
Introductory items
2.1 Welcome address
2.2 Opening statements
2.3 Secretarys report on Credentials, voting rights
and circular communications
2.4 Meeting arrangements
3.
Adoption of the Agenda
4.
Sanctuaries
4.1 South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
4.1.1 Proposal for the establishment of a South
Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
4.2 Other sanctuary issues raised in the Scientific and
Conservation Committees
4.3 Other
5.
The IWC in the future
6.
Whale stocks
6.1 Antarctic minke whales
6.2 Southern Hemisphere humpback whales
6.3 Southern Hemisphere blue whales
6.4 Western North Pacific gray whales
6.5 Southern Hemisphere right whales
6.6 North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales and
small stocks of bowhead whales
6.7 North Pacific research cruises
6.8 Other stocks
7.
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling

7.1 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management
Procedure
7.1.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling Sub-committee
7.2 Aboriginal Whaling Scheme

7.3 Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
7.3.2 Proposals for Aboriginal subsistence
whaling catch limits
8.
8.1 Investigation of inedible stinky gray whales
8.2 Ship strikes
8.3 Southern right whales of Chile-Peru
8.4 National Reports on Cetacean Conservation
8.5 Marine debris
8.6 Voluntary fund for small cetacean conservation
research
8.7 Other
9.
Conservation Management Plans

10. Whalewatching
11. Whale killing methods and associated
welfare issues
11.1 Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing
Methods and Associated Welfare Issues
12. Socio-economic implications and small
type whaling
13. Revised Management Procedure (RMP)
13.1.1 General issues
13.1.2 Implementation process
- Western North Pacific Brydes whales
- Central North Atlantic fin whales
- Western North Pacific common minke
whales
13.1.3 Bycatch
14. Scientific Permits

14.1.1 Review of results from existing permits
14.1.2 Review of new or continuing proposals
14.1.3 Procedures for reviewing scientific
permit proposals
14.1.4 Other
15. Safety at sea
16. Catches by non-member nations
17. Infractions, 2011 season
17.1 Report of the Infractions Sub-committee
18. Environmental and health issues
18.1 State of the Cetacean Environment (SOCER)
18.1.2 Commission discussions and action
arising
18.2 POLLUTION 2000+ research programme
arising
18.3 Cetacean diseases
18.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committees
working group on Cetacean Emerging
and Resurging Diseases (CERD)
arising
18.4 The impacts of oil and dispersants on cetaceans
arising
18.5 Marine renewable energy developments and
cetaceans
arising
18.6 Anthropogenic sound
arising
18.7 Climate change
arising
18.8 Ecosystem modelling
arising
18.9 Proposal for a Workshop on Anthropogenic
Impacts to Cetaceans in the Arctic
arising
national and regional efforts to monitor and
address the impacts of environmental change on
cetaceans and other marine mammals
arising
73
18.11 Health issues

arising
18.12 Other
19. Other Scientific Committee activities,
its future work plan and adoption of
the Scientific Committee Report
19.1 Small cetaceans
arising
19.2 Regional non-lethal research partnerships
arising
19.3 Other activities
arising
19.4 Scientific Committee future work plan
arising
19.5 Adoption of the Scientific Committees report
20. Co-operation with other organisations
20.2 Other reports
21. Administrative matters
21.1 Meeting arrangements and procedures
21.1.1 Report of the Finance and Administration
Committee
arising
21.2 The Commissions website
Committee
arising
21.3 Operational effectiveness
Committee
arising
21.4 Cost saving measures
Committee
arising
22. Formula for calculating contributions and related matters
Committee
23. Report of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on strengthening IWC
financing
Committee
74
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex B
24. Financial statements, budgets and

other matters considered by the
Budgetary Sub-committee
24.1 Review of Provisional Financial Statement
2011/2012
Committee
arising
24.2 Consideration of estimated budgets, 2012/2013
and 2013/2014
Committee
arising
24.1 Other
25. Adoption of the report of the Finance

and Administration Committee
26. Date and
meetings
place
of
forthcoming
27. Advisory Committee

28. Summary of decisions and required
actions
29. Other matters
75
Annex C
List of Documents
IWC/64/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8rev1
9
10
11
11rev1
11rev2
12
13
13rev1
13rev2
14
15
16
17
18
19
Annotated Provisional Agenda

List of documents
Delegates and Observers attending the 64th Annual Meeting
Cooperation with other organisations
Audited Financial Statement for the year ended 31 August 2011
Provisional Financial Statement for the year ended 31 August 2012
Proposed Budget options for single financial year ended 31 August 2013, and double financial
year ended 31 August 2014
The South Atlantic: A Sanctuary for Whales (Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay)
The South Atlantic: A Sanctuary for Whales (Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Uruguay)
Proposed Schedule amendment to permit the catching of minke whales from the Okhotsk SeaWest Pacific Stock by small-type whaling vessels (Japan)
Schedule amendment to enable indigenous peoples to continue meeting their aboriginal
subsistence needs (Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines and USA)
Draft Resolution on Highly Migratory Cetaceans and Ocean Governance (Monaco)
Proposed Schedule amendment on Greenland catch limits (Denmark)
Draft Resolution on the Importance of Continued Scientific Research with Regard to the Impact
of the Degradation of the Marine Environment on the Health of Cetaceans and Related Human
Health Effects (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and
the United Kingdom)
Resolution 2012-x on the Importance of Continued Scientific Research with Regard to the
Impact of the Degradation of the Marine Environment on the Health of Cetaceans and Related
Human Health Effects (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom)
Resolution 2012-x on the Importance of Continued Scientific Research with Regard to the
Impact of the Degradation of the Marine Environment on the Health of Cetaceans and Related
Human Health Effects (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom)
Catches by IWC member nations in the 2011 and 2011/2012 seasons (Secretariat)
Draft changes to F&A Report Appendix 4 from Drafting Group (USA, Australia, Saint Lucia,
Japan and the United Kingdom)
Elections to the Advisory Committee (Secretariat)
Proposal to establish an adhoc Small Working Group to seek options for resolving matters
related to the small-type coastal whaling (Japan)
Resolution on the Creation of a Fund to Strengthen the Capacity of Governments of Limited
Means to Participate in the Work of the IWC (Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Kiribati,
Mongolia, Nauru, Republic of Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The
Grenadines and Tuvalu)
Information to facilitate discussion on providing assistance to Government of limited means
(Japan)
Agenda Item
20
24
24
24
4.1
4.1
12
7.3
20
20
20
7.3
18
18
18
21.1
27
12.1
21.1
21.1
76
sixty-FOURTH annual meeting, annex C
Reports from Commission sub-groups

IWC/64/Rep
Agenda Item
1
2
Report of the Finance and Administration Committee
21, 22, 23, 24,25
3
Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
7
4
Report of the Infractions Sub-committee
17.1
4rev1
Report of the Infractions Sub-committee
17.1
5
Report of the Conservation Committee
4, 8, 9, 10
6
Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues
11
7
Report of the Working Group to Consider the Role of Observers at Meetings of the
21.1
Commission
Summary documents available in French and Spanish
IWC/64/
Rep1
-FR or SP Unofficial summary of IWC/64/Rep1 (Report of the Scientific Committee)
Rep2
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep2 (Report of the Finance and Administration Committee)
Rep3
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep3 (Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling SubCommittee)
Rep4
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep4 (Report of the Infractions Sub-committee)
Rep5
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep5 (Report of the Conservation Committee)
Rep6
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep6 (Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods
and Associated Welfare Issues)
Rep7
-FR or SP Unofficial Chairs summary of IWC/64/Rep7 (Report of the Working Group to Consider the Role of
Observers at Meetings of the Commission)
Opening Statements
IWC/64/OS GO (Member Governments)
Argentina
Australia
Cyprus
Denmark
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
USA
IWC/64/OS IGO (Inter-Governmental observers)
CMS
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
NAMMCO
North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
NRDC
Natural Resources Defence Council
IWC/64/OS NGO
COMARINO
GGT
HSI
ICB
ITF
WWF
Campaign Whale
Green Vegans
Greenpeace
IWMC
JSU
Conservacin de Mamferos Marinos de Mxico A.C.

Global Guardian Trust
Instituto de Conservacion de Ballenas
International Transport Workers Federation
WWF International
Campaign Whale
Green Vegans
Greenpeace International
IWMC World Conservation Trust
All Japan Seamans Union
77
Annex D
Resolutions Adopted at the 64th Annual Meeting
Resolution 2012-1
RESOLUTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WITH REGARD TO THE
IMPACT OF THE DEGRADATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ON THE HEALTH OF CETACEANS
AND RELATED HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTs
RECALLING IWC Resolutions 1998-11, 1999-4 and
2000-6 expressing the Commissions concern about the
negative effects of environmental degradation on cetaceans,
in particular the existence of high levels of organic
contaminants and heavy metals; and NOTING that, while
the consumption of cetaceans products may have positive
health effects, scientific evidence demonstrates that some
communities may be faced with health problems arising
from the high level of such contaminants that are present in
those products in their diet;
ALSO RECALLING that IWC Resolution 1998-11
invites Governments directly affected to submit, when
possible, reliable information to the IWC relating to possible
human health effects resulting from the consumption
of cetacean products, and encourages the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and other appropriate agencies to put
this issue on their own agenda;
FURTHER RECALLING that IWC Resolution 2000-7
notes that the study of the effects of environmental changes
on cetaceans is an integral part of their conservation and
management;
NOTING to this effect that the need for rigorous scientific
advice and risk assessments for cetaceans lies at the heart of
the work undertaken by the Scientific Committee, inter alia,
under the Pollution 2000+ research program, endorsed by
the IWC at its 51st Annual Meeting;
NOTING that IWC Resolution 1999-4 requests the
Scientific Committee to receive, review and collate data
on contaminant burdens in cetaceans and forward these as
appropriate to the WHO and competent national authorities,
and to report on this matter to the Commission;
RECALLING that organic contaminants and heavy
metals are seriously polluting the environment and its
living resources including some species of whales in some
areas, and may have a significant negative health effect on
consumers of products from these marine mammals;
NOTING the recent assessments and recommendations
of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
Working Group of the Arctic Council in its report Arctic
Pollution 2011 (Mercury in the Arctic); and
NOTING that IWC Resolution 1999-4 instructing

the IWC Secretariat to correspond with the World Health
Organization (WHO) has led to an exchange of information;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION:
INSTRUCTS the Secretariat to forward this Resolution
to the World Health Organisation (WHO) with a request for
increased exchange of information between the IWC and the
WHO;
ENCOURAGES the WHO to conduct reviews of recent
scientific publications regarding contaminants in certain
cetacean products and give updated advice for consumers;
WELCOMES the work accomplished so far under the
Pollution 2000+ research programme;
REQUESTS the Scientific Committee to remain
engaged in the evaluation of the available data on organic
contaminants and heavy metals in some cetaceans as well as
the effect of such contamination on the health of cetaceans
and their reproduction; and FURTHER REQUESTS the
Scientific Committee to report to the IWC on the progress
accomplished thereon, if possible by the next meeting of the
Commission (IWC/65);
In this vein, INVITES all Governments to continue
supporting the Scientific Committee in its work; and
FURTHER CALLS UPON all Governments to take all
necessary steps to implement existing legislation and
standards aiming at reducing the input of contaminants,
including heavy metals, into marine ecosystems;
FURTHER URGES the Governments concerned to
remain vigilant and responsibly inform consumers about
positive and negative health effects, related to consumption
of some cetacean products, and take such steps as necessary
to counter negative effects based on rigorous scientific
advice and clear risk assessments; and
UNDERTAKES to revisit the issue at a future meeting,
in the light of the relevant developments and scientific
information, and based on the report by the Scientific
Committee.
78
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex E
Annex E
Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee
Wednesday 27 June 2012, Panam City, Republic of Panama
A list of participants is given as Appendix 1.
1.1 Appointment of Chair
Herman Oosthuizen (South Africa) was appointed Chair.
1.2 Appointment of Rapporteur
Greg Donovan (Secretariat) and Karena Rosa Lyons (New
Zealand) were appointed rapporteurs.
The list of documents is given as Appendix 2.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The adopted Agenda is given as Appendix 3.
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
3.1 Progress with the Greenlandic Research Programme
The Chair of the Scientific Committees SWG on the
Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management
Procedure, Greg Donovan (hereafter Chair of the SWG),
reported on the Scientific Committees work in this regard.
He explained that two items of the Committees agenda
were relevant to this item: those relating to the work on the
development of Strike Limit Algorithms (SLAs) (IWC/64/
Rep1, Item 8.3); and to consideration of conversion factors
for edible products (IWC/64/Rep1, Item 8.6).
development of strike limit algorithms
The Committee developed and the Commission endorsed an

interim safe approach to setting catch limits for the Greenland
hunts in 2008, noting that this should be considered valid for
up to two blocks, i.e. the target is for the Committee to have
developed agreed and validated SLAs by species by the 2017
or 2018 Annual Meeting. The interim safe approach uses an
SLA that has been simulation tested in the normal manner but
not for as full a range of scenarios as a formal long-term SLA.
For a number of reasons, primarily related to stock
structure issues, development of SLAs for Greenland
aboriginal hunts for common minke and fin whales will be
more complex than for the Bowhead and Gray Whale SLAs.
The Committee noted the multi-species nature of the
Greenland hunts and Greenlands desire for flexibility
amongst species in meeting its subsistence needs. It
reiterated that its approach will first be to develop SLAs for
individual species before considering whether and how to
address multispecies considerations.
In order to progress essential SLA development work,
the Committee agreed that an intersessional Workshop was
essential to maintain progress.
With respect to common minke whales and fin whales,
it was noted that the Committees SWG on the AWMP and
its sub-committee on the Revised Management Procedure

(RMP) both have interest in North Atlantic common minke
whales. The Committee endorsed the planned co-operative
and collaborative process that will culminate in a joint
Workshop on the stock structure of this species in the North
Atlantic in early 2014. This will greatly assist the SLA
development process and the development of a common
simulation testing framework. A similar situation exists for
North Atlantic fin whales which are also of interest to the
Scientific Committees sub-committee on the RMP.
conversion factors
In 2009, the Commission appointed a small working group

(comprising several Committee members) to visit Greenland
and compile a report (see IWC/62/9) on the conversion
factors used for each species to translate the Greenlandic
need request which is provided in tonnes of edible products
to numbers of animals. At that time the group provided
conversion factors based upon the best available data, noting
that given the low sample sizes, the values for species other
than common minke whales for which the estimate was
robust should be considered provisional. The group also
recommended that a focused attempt to collect new data
on edible products taken from species other than common
minke whales be undertaken, to allow a review of the
interim factors; and that data on both curved and standard
measurements are obtained during the coming season for
all species taken. The report was endorsed by the Scientific
Committee.
Last year, the Committee had welcomed an initial report
from Greenland, recognising the logistical difficulty of
collecting these kinds of data, but had requested additional
information. This year, a further report was received from
the Greenlandic authorities that provided information on the
data collected thus far (IWC/64/ASW10).
Although welcoming the report, the Committee expressed
some concerns about it (e.g. low sample size, method used,
low yield for fin whale see IWC/64/Rep1, Item 8.6). It
was noted that the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
(GINR) has been asked to investigate the low sample sizes
and is working with the hunters and authorities to improve the
sample size in the future. Given these concerns the Committee
reiterated its recommendations from 2011 and 2012:
(1) the provision of a full scientific paper to the next Annual
Meeting that details inter alia at least a full description
of the field protocols and sampling strategy (taking
into account previous suggestions by the Committee);
analytical methods; and a presentation of the results thus
far, including information on the sex and length of each
of the animals for which weight data are available; and
(2) the collection and provision of data on recommendation
no. 2 of IWC/62/9 comparing standard vs curvilinear
whale lengths. This should be done for all three species
(bowhead, humpback and fin whales) on as many whales
as possible. Guidelines and protocols are suggested in
IWC/62/9.
3.1.2 Discussion and recommendations

The Sub-Committee endorsed the report of the Scientific
Committee and its recommendations.
Greenland presented an updated report on its work on
conversion factors in response to the Scientific Committees
recommendations (IWC/64/ASW10). It noted that its
current need statement and request (see Item 6.7) used the
conversion factors per animal included in IWC/62/9.
Greenland welcomed the comments of the Committee
and noted this fuller progress report was for the information
of the Sub-Committee. It will be presenting a detailed
report on progress in line with the Scientific Committees
recommendations and those of the Commissions small
working group of two years ago (IWC/62/9) at next years
meeting. The report can be summarised as follows:
(1) the focus is on the three species (bowhead, humpback
and fin whales) for which IWC/62/9 recommended
interim factors and further work;
(2) that the protocol was introduced seven months into the
whaling season in 2010 and as noted in IWC/62/9, the
difficult environmental conditions, the huge length of
coastline and opportunistic nature of the hunts require
collaboration between authorities, hunters, scientists
and wildlife officers the present system was developed
by them and has been incorporated into the Greenlandic
Executive Orders so that weighing and reporting is
mandatory;
(3) sample sizes have been less than expected and increased
efforts to improve this are underway in co-operation
with the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources;
(4) as noted by the Scientific Committee, the methods may
be modified in the light of the experience gained to date
(e.g. weighing of several rather than a single bin for
each product for each whale);
(5) the limited results obtained thus far do not suggest that
changes need to be made to the interim conversion
factors developed in IWC/62/9 that were endorsed by
the Scientific Committee; and
(6) a full progress report will be presented to the Scientific
Committee in line with its recommendations next year.
In discussion, several countries thanked Denmark/
Greenland for presenting the more detailed updated progress
report. However, the UK and Australia also indicated
concern over the poor sample size and poor following of
the developed protocols. They looked forward to receiving
information on improved procedures and sample sizes
next year. Austria recognised the difficulties involved but
highlighted the problems noted by the Scientific Committee
with both the methods used (weighing one rather than
several bins) and the following of the protocol by only a few
hunters. It also noted a lack of consultation with the small
working group. The information provided in the document
was not sufficient to warrant any change in the conversion
factors which should only occur if agreed by the Scientific
Committee. Argentina commented that it needed more time
to study the report and looks forward to the full progress
report that Denmark/Greenland will be submitting to the
Scientific Committee next year.
3.2 Implementation Review for gray whales
The Chair of the SWG noted that the Committees discussions
on this issue can be found under Item 8.1 of IWC/64/Rep1.
He recalled that the 2010 Implementation Review had shown
that the eastern North Pacific population as a whole was in
79
a healthy state (the population size in 2006/07 was around

20,000 animals), but that a new immediate Implementation
Review was needed to evaluate the performance of SLAs
for proposed hunting by the Makah Tribe in the Pacific
Northwest, with a primary focus on the small (around 200
animals) PCFG (the Pacific Coast Feeding Group). The
PCFG was in essence treated as a separate management
stock from the large eastern North Pacific population from
which the Chukotkan hunt was taken. The process has
taken work by the Committee at two Annual Meetings and
two intersessional Workshops. The report of the Scientific
Committee documents the extensive work undertaken
following the simulation trial approach pioneered by the
Committee.
In terms of SLAs, the Committee explored the
conservation performance of 11 variants of a management
plan proposed by the Makah Tribe to reduce the likelihood
that a PCFG whale might be taken in the hunt.
Evaluation of SLAs is based on the objectives accepted
by the Commission in 1982 and 1994 which are to:
(a) ensure that the risks of extinction to individual
stocks are not seriously increased by subsistence
whaling;
(b) enable aboriginal people to harvest whales in
perpetuity at levels appropriate to their cultural
and nutritional requirements, subject to the other
objectives; and
(c) maintain the status of stocks at or above the level
giving the highest net recruitment and to ensure that
stocks below that level are moved towards it, so far
as the environment permits.
Highest priority is accorded to the objective of ensuring
that the risk of extinction to individual stocks is not seriously
increased by subsistence whaling.
In order to minimise the risk of taking PCFG whales, the
management plan developed by the Makah Tribe restricts
the hunt both temporally and geographically. Some PCFG
whales are present during the migratory season and thus
the plan proposes an Allowable PCFG Limit (APL) during
hunts that are targeting eastern North Pacific migrating
whales with the aim of ensuring that accidental takes of
PCFG whales do not deplete the PCFG.
Weather conditions and availability of whales makes
it likely that most hunting will occur in May. However,
there are insufficient data to assess the number of strikes
by month. Given this uncertainty about how the plan would
respond to failing to take into account struck-and-lost PCFG
whales, the Tribe had proposed two SLA variants (1 and 2)
that spanned the options as to when the hunt might occur.
SLA variant 1 proposes that struck-and-lost whales do
not count towards the APL, i.e. there is no management
response to PCFG whales struck but not landed. SLA variant
2 proposes that all struck-and-lost whales count to the APL
irrespective of hunting month, i.e. the number of whales
counted towards the APL may exceed the actual number
of PCFG whales struck. The Committee evaluated all of
the trial results against the Commissions objectives and
concluded:
(1) SLA variant 2 performed acceptably and met the
Commissions conservation objectives; and
(2) SLA variant 1 performed acceptably provided that it is
80
The Committee commended these variants to the

Commission. It also agreed that the Implementation Review
is completed. Management advice is discussed under Item
6.2 below.
However, the Committee noted that the SLA variants
tested did not correspond exactly to the management plan
proposed by the Makah to the IWC. The Committee agreed
to test such a variant intersessionally and examine the results
at the next Annual Meeting.
The Chair of the SWG drew attention to a further relevant
aspect of the Committees work. Last year, the Committee
had stressed three points.
(1) New information on movements of gray whales
highlighted the importance of further clarification of
the stock structure of North Pacific gray whales. In
particular, the matches of animals from the Sakhalin
feeding grounds with animals seen in the PCFG area and
other areas along the west coast emphasised the need
for efforts to estimate the probability of a western gray
whale being taken in aboriginal hunts for Pacific gray
whales (noting that this did not require incorporation of
western gray whales into the Implementation Review).
(2) It had strongly endorsed the basinwide research
programme, noting that the results of the research may
require further trials for future SLA testing; this would
be a matter for consideration at the next Implementation
Review if not before.
(3) The Committee will continue to monitor the situation
and was willing to respond to any guidance or requests
for further information from the Commission.
This year the Committee had received a paper (SC/64/
BRG9) that provided an initial modelling approach to
address point (1) above. Although welcoming this work, a
number of questions were raised and further work identified
before any conclusions could be agreed. The Committee
recommended that a revised document be developed for
further review at next years meeting, noting its potential
importance for the provision of management advice.
4. ABORIGINAL WHALING SCHEME (AWS)
The Chair of the SWG noted that this item was found under
Items 8.4 and 8.5 of IWC/64/Rep1.
Guidelines for Implementation Reviews
An integral part of the AWMP process is the undertaking
of regular or special Implementation Reviews, as noted for
example during the development process of the Bowhead
Whale SLA (IWC, 2003, pp.26-27)1.
The Committee had agreed that it would be useful to
develop guidelines for Implementation Reviews, given the
experience gained thus far. The proposed guidelines are
provided in IWC/64/Rep1 (Annex E, Appendix 8) and cover
the following issues: (1) objectives; (2) timing of regular
and special Implementation Reviews; (3) outcomes; (4) data
availability; and (5) computer programs.
The Committee adopted these internal guidelines.
1
IWC. 2003. Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
(Suppl.) 5: 1-92.
Scientific aspects of an Aboriginal Whaling Scheme (AWS)

In 2002, the Committee had strongly recommended that
the Commission adopt the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Scheme (IWC, 2003b, pp.22-231). The scheme covers
a number of practical issues such as survey intervals,
carryover, and guidelines for surveys. The Committee has
stated in the past that the AWS provisions constitute an
important and necessary component of safe management
under AWMP SLAs and it reaffirmed this view. It noted that
discussions within the Commission of some aspects such as
the grace period are not yet complete.
4.2 Discussion and recommendations
The Sub-Committee noted the report of the Scientific
Committee.
5. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW)
WORKING GROUP
5.2 Report of the ad hoc Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling Working Group
In 2011, the Commission endorsed a recommendation
contained in document IWC/63/12rev to form an ad hoc
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Working Group (ASWWG).
The members were Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Japan,
Russian Federation, Switzerland and the USA, along
with the Secretariat and two members of the Scientific
Committee. The purpose of the group was to identify and
consider unresolved ASW issues, including inter alia those
identified in the 2011 report of the ASW Sub-Committee.
The Chair of the ASWWG, Rollie Schmitten (USA)
presented its report (IWC/64/ASW5). The Chair updated
the Sub-Committee on the ASWWGs discussions over the
past year. He focused on the recommended actions of the
ASWWG relating to five short-term tasks:
Task 1. Facilitate the exchange of technical information
on ASW hunts
Recommendations:
(1) request Member Governments with aboriginal
subsistence hunts to cooperate, to the fullest extent,
in the exchange of technical hunting information;
(2) acknowledge and encourage the activities of the
ASW Caucus in facilitating the exchange of technical
information among its members; and
(3) request that the ASW Caucus add an item on
exchange of technical information to the agenda
for each of its meetings and consider any significant
issues specific to ASW hunts, and forward them to
the ASW Sub-Committee.
Task 2. Standardise catch limits expressed as number of
whales vs tons
Recommendations: encourage Denmark/Greenland to
continue to report East Greenlands single species hunt
in term of number of whales struck/landed. Along with
this recommendation, the Chair noted that one member
did not accept Greenlands explanation for expressing its
nutritional subsistence need for whales in terms of tons.
Task 3. Discuss the merits of long term ASW catch limits
Recommendations: the ASWWG noted the comments
from a Scientific Committee Workshop (SC/64/Rep3)
and awaits final action by the Scientific Committee on
long term catch limits. Along with this recommendation,
the Chair noted that one member did not believe that
the IWC should move beyond 5-year block catch limits

for any population until it has adopted an SLA for that
population.
Task 4. Discuss IWC or other funding sources to support
implementation by ASW hunters of any new IWC
requirements that may arise
Recommendations: propose the adoption of an IWC
Voluntary Fund during IWC/65, including a request for
the Secretary to make arrangements for the creation of
such a fund whereby contributions can be registered and
utilised by the Commission.
Task 5. Secretariat review of ASW management issues
and definitions.
Recommendations: a working draft report has been completed and is with the ASWWG for review.
5.3 Discussion and recommendations (including work
plan)
The Sub-Committee thanked the ASWWG for its work
and endorsed its recommendations (noting the reservations
of one member of the ASWWG above), noting that the
recommendation regarding the establishment of a Voluntary
Fund will need to be taken to the meeting of the Finance and
Administration Committee.
CATCH LIMITS
Before presenting the Scientific Committees discussions
of individual catch limits, the Chair of the SWG introduced
their discussions on the topic of the implications of setting
catch limits for an even number of years if the Commission
moves to biennial meetings (IWC/64/Rep1, Item 9). The
Committee agreed that there are no scientific reasons for
the Commission not to set catch limits for blocks of even
numbers of years up to 8 years for B-C-B bowhead and
eastern gray whale stocks. Given the interim safe approach
adopted in 2008 for the Greenland hunts, the Committee
agrees that there are no scientific reasons why the next quota
block for the Greenland hunts could not be for a 6-year
period, noting that the long-term SLAs will be available for
implementation for the following block quota.
In response to a question by the USA, the Chair of the
SWG noted that the Scientific Committee had by oversight
not discussed the question of the length of a block quota
for the hunt in St. Vincent and The Grenadines. When asked
for his view, he stressed he was speaking in an individual
capacity. He noted that for a similar situation (that of the
East Greenland common minke whale hunt, where the
advice is based on the fact that the catch is a very small
proportion of the total stock see Item 6.3 below), the
Committee had agreed that up to a six-year block would be
acceptable. From this one might infer that the same was true
for the St. Vincent and The Grenadines hunt where the catch
advice is also based on the fact that the catch was a very
small proportion of the total stock (see Item 6.7.1 below).
6.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas (B-C-B) stock of
bowhead whales
The Chair of the SWG noted that two of the Committees
agenda items were relevant to this topic: the Implementation
Review for B-C-B bowhead whales (IWC/64/Rep1, Item
8.2) and the consideration of stocks subject to aboriginal
subsistence whaling (IWC/64/Rep1, Item 9)
81
The Committees task during an Implementation Review

is to assess whether there is any new information that
would suggest that the range of trials used to evaluate the
Bowhead SLA is no longer sufficient to ensure that the SLA
meets the Commissions conservation and user objectives.
The Committee received and evaluated excellent papers
on stock structure, abundance and catches and thanked
US scientists, the North Slope Borough, Alaska, and the
native communities for continuing to provide a considerable
body of high-quality scientific work which facilitated the
Implementation Review process. In completing the review
the Committee agreed that the Bowhead SLA continues to
be the most appropriate way for the Committee to provide
management advice for the B-C-B population of bowhead
whales.
SC/64/BRG2 presented information on the 2011 Alaskan
hunt. A total of 51 bowhead whales were struck resulting
in 38 animals landed. No bowhead whales were reported
struck and lost at Chukotka.
In 2007, the Commission agreed that a total of up to 280
B-C-B bowhead whales could be landed in the period 200812, with no more than 67 whales struck in any year, with
up to 15 unused strikes able to be carried over each year
and added to the strike limit for any one year. The use of
the Bowhead SLA confirms that the present strike and catch
limits are acceptable.
6.1.2 Consideration of need
The need statement for B-C-B bowhead whales by the USA is
given as IWC/64/ASW3 while the need statement for B-C-B
bowhead whales for the Chukotkan hunt is given in IWC/64/
ASW6. In response to a request by the Chair, the USA and
the Russian Federation provided short summaries of their
extensive documents and these are given as Appendices 4
and 5, respectively. The strike/catch limit requests from the
USA and the Russian Federation are at the same levels as
previously although scaled to a six-year block.
It also accepted the need statements provided by the
USA and the Russian Federation.
6.2 North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales
The Chair of the SWG noted that this referred to Item 9.2 of
IWC/64/Rep3. In addition to completing the Implementation
Review with the focus on PCFG gray whales (see Item 3.2.1
above), the Committee reviewed a wide range of excellent
papers on this stock including papers from Mexico, the
USA and the Russian Federation. A number of research
recommendations were made but no information was
presented that warranted any re-evaluation of the Gray
Whale SLA.
The Russian Federation reported that a total of 128 gray
whales were struck in Chukotka, Russia in 2011; two were
lost and 126 were landed. Of the landed whales, two were
stinky and not used for human consumption.
In 2007, the Commission had agreed that a total catch
of up to 620 gray whales was allowed for the years 200812 with a maximum of 140 in any year. No new data were
presented this year to change the Committees advice for
the large eastern North Pacific population and therefore the
Committee agreed that the Gray Whale SLA remains the
appropriate tool to provide management advice for eastern
North Pacific gray whales apart from the consideration of
82
the PCFG and the Makah hunt (see below). The Committee
reiterated that the current strike limits will not harm the
stock.
With respect to the management plan variants provided
by the Makah Tribe, the Committee agreed that:
(1) variant 2 performs acceptably; and
(2) variant 1 performs acceptably provided that it is
Matters related to the possibility of an animal feeding in
the western North Pacific being taken in the PCFG area were
discussed under Item 3.2.1.
The need statement for the eastern gray whale hunt off
Chukotka is given as IWC/64/ASW6 while the need
statement for Makah hunt is given in IWC/64/ASW4. In
response to a request by the Chair, the Russian Federation
and the USA provided short summaries of their extensive
documents and these are given as Appendices 5 and 6,
respectively.
In addition the Russian Federation presented IWC/64/
ASW9 which provided additional information on the 2011
hunt. A total of 126 gray whales (58 males, 68 females)
were landed in Chukotka waters in 2011; two were struckand-lost. Over half (57.1%) were subadults and the average
length of harvested whales was higher than in the previous
two years. Two were stinky and inedible. Whalers did not
target calves or adults seen with them and there were no
signs of milk in the stomachs of landed whales. A total of 10
whales had traumas or haematomas. Some 42% of animals
demonstrated aggressive behaviour. Biological sampling
was conducted on 55 gray whales. No bowhead whales were
taken in 2011.
It also accepted the need statements provided by the USA
and the Russian Federation. The strike/catch limit requests
from the USA and the Russian Federation are at the same
levels as previously although scaled to a six-year block.
6.3 Common minke whale stocks off Greenland
The Chair of the SWG noted that the Committees advice
covered two hunts: that off West Greenland (IWC/64/Rep1,
Item 9.4); and that off East Greenland (IWC/64/Rep1, Item
9.5).
WEST GREENLAND
In the 2011 season, 173* minke whales were landed in West

Greenland and 6 were struck and lost. Genetic samples
were obtained from 90 of these whales. The Committee reemphasised the importance of collecting genetic samples
from these whales.
In 2007, the Commission agreed that the number of
common minke whales struck from this stock shall not
exceed 200 in each of the years 2008-12, except that up to
15 strikes can be carried forward. In 2009, the Committee
was for the first time ever able to provide management
advice for this stock based on a negatively biased estimate
*Corrected value (from 174) provided by Denmark/Greenland after the
close of the Committee.
of abundance of 17,307 (95% CI: 7,628-39,270) and the

method for providing interim management advice which
was confirmed by the Commission. Such advice can be
used for up to two five year blocks whilst SLAs are being
developed (IWC, 2009)2. In the light of the advice provided
the strike limit was reduced to 178 from 2010.
Based on the application of the agreed approach, the
Committee repeated its advice of last year that an annual
strike limit of 178 will not harm the stock.
East Greenland
Nine common minke whales were struck (and landed) off

East Greenland in 2011, and one was struck and lost. Catches
of minke whales off East Greenland are believed to come
from the large Central stock of minke whales. No genetic
samples were obtained from minke whales caught in East
Greenland. The Committee re-emphasises the importance of
collecting genetic samples from these whales.
In 2007, the Commission agreed to an annual strike limit
of 12 minke whales from the stock off East Greenland for
2008-12, which the Committee stated was acceptable. The
present strike limit represents a very small proportion of the
Central stock of common minke whales. The Committee
repeated its advice of last year that the present strike limit
will not harm the stock.
Given the multispecies need request of Greenland, the Chair
agreed that need would be discussed after presentation of the
Scientific Committees advice for all of the stocks subject to
Greenlandic hunts. That discussion can therefore be found
under Item 6.7.
6.4 West Greenland stock of fin whales
is given under Item 9.6 of IWC/64/Rep3. A total of five fin
whales were landed during 2011. No genetic samples were
obtained. The Committee re-emphasised the importance of
collecting genetic samples from these whales, particularly in
the light of the proposed work to develop a long-term SLA
for this stock (see Item 3.1.1).
In 2007, the Commission agreed to a quota (for the years
2008-12) of 19 fin whales struck off West Greenland. This
was subsequently modified to 16 and at the 2010 Annual
Meeting Greenland voluntarily reduced the limit to 10 until
2012. The Committee agreed an approach for providing
interim management advice in 2008 and this was confirmed
by the Commission. It had agreed that such advice could be
used for up to two blocks whilst SLAs were being developed
(see IWC, 2009)2. Based on the agreed 2007 estimate of
abundance for fin whales (4,539 95%CI: 1,897-10,114), and
using this approach, the Committee repeated its advice that
an annual strike limit of 19 whales will not harm the stock.
under Item 6.7.
2
(Suppl.) 11: 16.

6.5 West Greenland stock of bowhead whales
The Chair of the SWG noted that the Committees advice is
given under Item 9.1 of IWC/64/Rep1. Discussion within
the Committee in recent years has focused on stock structure
and associated abundance estimates. The present working
hypothesis is that bowhead whales in eastern CanadaWest Greenland comprise a single stock; the alternative
hypothesis assumes two stocks: one in Hudson Bay-Foxe
Basin and another in Baffin Bay-Davis Strait. The Committee
welcomes a number of papers related to this stock.
In 2011, one female bowhead whale was landed in
West Greenland and none were struck and lost (SC/64/
ProgRepDenmark). Two bowhead whales were found dead
in West Greenland in 2011, entangled in fishing gear for
crabs.
During 2011, three bowhead whales were taken in
Canada. Detailed information was made available by Canada
to the Secretariat. The Scientific Committee was pleased to
receive this information including catch as well as struck/
lost data.
In 2007, the Commission agreed to an annual strike limit
of 2 animals for West Greenland (for the years 2008-12) with
a carryover provision that any unused strikes can be carried
forward to subsequent years so long as no more than two
strikes are added for any one year. The Committee agreed an
approach for providing interim management advice in 2008
and this was confirmed by the Commission. The agreed
abundance estimate for the single Eastern Canada/West
Greenland stock is 6,344 (95% CI: 3,119-12,906) for 2002.
The most recent agreed estimate for the spring aggregation
in the West Greenland area is 1,747 (95% CI: 966-2,528)
for 2010.
Using the agreed interim safe approach (IWC, 2009)2
and the 2010 estimate for West Greenland, the Committee
repeated its advice that an annual strike limit of 2 whales in
West Greenland will not harm the stock.
The Committee agreed that it will review an updated
analysis for the 2010 West Greenland area at next years
meeting. It noted that although this is slightly lower, if
adopted it will not alter the management advice. The
Committee is also aware that catches from the same stock
have been taken by a non-member nation, Canada. Should
Canadian catches continue at a similar level as in recent
years, this would not change the Committees advice with
respect to the strike limits agreed for West Greenland.
Given the importance of this issue, the Committee again
recommended that the Secretariat continues to contact
Canada requesting information about catches and domestic
catch limits for bowhead whales, as well as any information
on strandings, entanglements and ship strikes.
Scientific Committees advice for all of the stocks subject
to Greenlandic hunts. That discussion can be found under
Item 6.7.
83
6.6 Humpback whales off West Greenland

is given under Item 9.7 of IWC/64/Rep1. A total of eight
(three males; five females) humpback whales were landed
(none were struck and lost) in West Greenland during
2011. Genetic samples were obtained from three of these
whales. The Committee re-emphasised the importance of
collecting genetic samples and photographs of the flukes
from these whales, particularly with respect to international
collaborative initiatives.
In 2007, the Committee agreed an approach for providing
interim management advice and this was confirmed by
the Commission. It had agreed that such advice could be
used for up to two five year blocks whilst SLAs were being
developed (IWC, 2009)2. The agreed estimate of abundance
for humpback whales is 3,039 (CV 0.4) with an annual rate
of increase of about 9%. Using this estimate and the agreed
approach, the Committee agrees that an annual strike limit
of 10 whales will not harm the stock.
under Item 6.7.
6.7 Consideration of need for the Greenlandic hunts
6.7.1 Need statement by Greenland
The need statement for the Greenlandic hunts is given
as IWC/64/ASW7 and IWC/64/ASW8. In response to a
request by the Chair, Denmark/Greenland provided a short
summary of their extensive documents and this summary is
given as Appendix 7. It noted that its request was consistent
with Scientific Committee advice. The proposed catch limits
for bowhead whales and for common minke whales off West
and East Greenland are unchanged although modified for a
six-year period. The proposed annual catch for humpback
whales is for 10 animals, an increase of 1 from the current
Schedule while that for fin whales is for 19 an increase of
3 from the current schedule. The request is consistent with
the multispecies need of 670 tonnes of edible products for
West Greenland and 12 common minke whales for East
Greenland.
There was considerable discussion regarding the need
statement by Greenland, including the sale of whale meat
in Greenlandic restaurants acknowledged by Greenland. The
Chair noted that there is clearly no consensus over this issue
within the Sub-Committee. He urged all countries to use the
time between the close of the meeting and the Plenary to
engage in further discussions in order to improve mutual
understanding of positions and to try to reach consensus.
Given the need for reflection and further consideration, rather
than a near verbatim record, the report below incorporates a
short summary of the main points raised.
The USA noted that it believes that the use of whale
products in Greenland is consistent with the IWC definition
of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. It also noted that there
(Suppl.) 11: 16.
84
appears to be acceptance by the ASW Sub-Committee of the

need for approximately 670 tons of whale meat per year.
It further noted that the Scientific Committee has found
Greenlands proposed levels sustainable for each stock. It
received information from Denmark/Greenland that the
expected yield for Greenland under status quo catch limits
(i.e. those currently defined in the Schedule) was 570 tonnes,
while the expected yield from the proposed catch limits
was 680 tonnes using conversion rates per animal from
IWC/62/9.
Iceland, Norway, Japan, Russian Federation, St. Lucia
and St. Vincent and The Grenadines also supported the need
statement and request of Denmark/Greenland, noting that
it was consistent with need requirements and the advice
provided by the Scientific Committee.
A number of countries raised various concerns over
the need statement and the request. The question of whale
meat being available in restaurants so that it could be eaten
by tourists was raised by Germany and the Dominican
Republic, in terms of whether this suggested that there
was a surplus of meat beyond need. Austria noted the
health advice provided by Greenlands Nutritional Council
(IWC/64/ASW7, p.81) that in effect means that persons of
reproductive age, including children, should not eat marine
mammals. It asked how Greenlanders were informed of this
and whether tourists were also informed.
Germany and Belgium commented that it was not
simply the sustainability of the catches that was important
but also issues related to biodiversity and overall status
of populations as well as human demographics, including
numbers of people living off hunting. Scientific advice
was just one component of the issue; economic and social
factors, nutritional health, agreement on need requirements
were others. Reference was made to other food sources in
Greenland such as plentiful fish stocks. Germany further
noted that the average catch of fin whales has been about 10
in recent decades, including 6 in 2010 and 5 in 2011, so it
questioned the need for 19 animals and also referred to the
large small cetacean hunts in Greenland.
New Zealand commented that the issue of Greenlandic
quotas has been one of the most difficult in recent years. It
supports the concept of aboriginal subsistence whaling and
does not dispute the sustainability of Denmark/Greenlands
request. However, the question of the level of need has been
problematic within the Commission and considerable effort
was expended in reaching agreement two years ago. New
Zealand urged all members to try to reach agreement on
the numbers agreed two years ago with no increase in fin or
humpback whale limits.
Australia associated itself with the views of New
Zealand, Germany, Belgium and the Dominican Republic.
Australia recalled that two years ago, Greenland agreed
that adding humpback whales would reduce the overall
number of whales taken because of their greater yield. It
also referred to the discussion of conversion factors under
Item 3.1.
Denmark/Greenland responded briefly to the comments
made, noting that it was willing to engage in additional
discussions outside the meeting. With respect to restaurants
it noted that it did not control who could eat particular
products within Greenland and saw no problem with tourists
eating whale meat in restaurants. The advice from the
Nutritional Council on marine mammals is well publicised
within Greenland and is available on the Councils website,
but as elsewhere (it is similar to advice on alcohol around
the world) is not mandatory. The nutritional value of local
foods is better and more environmentally sound than flying

in imported foods from the west along with the associated
health problems this can bring,
With respect to biodiversity and sustainability, it believed
that these were issues taken into account by the Scientific
Committee. With respect to fin whales, it noted that they
were more difficult to catch and flense than common minke
and humpback whales; given the opportunistic nature
of hunting and the vagaries of environmental conditions
then fin whales could be regarded as a backup when need
could not be met from preferred species. The overall food
requirements are met from a balance between a number of
local food resources as well as imports and this will vary
from year to year depending on conditions and availability.
There may also have been a misunderstanding about what
was said two years ago. The overall food resource need is
the same and if it cannot be met by whale products than this
has to be met from elsewhere including small cetaceans and
imported products. It also stated that it will do its very best to
meet the request for improved data collection, although the
difficulties in infrastructure must be taken into consideration.
After listening to the Denmark/Greenland response,
Chile associated itself with those countries that expressed
concerns over the Greenland request.
6.8 North Atlantic humpback whales off St. Vincent and
The Grenadines
is given as Item 9.8 of IWC/64/Rep1. Last year the SWG
noted that it had received no catch data from St. Vincent and
The Grenadines for 2010-11 although after the Committee
meeting the Secretariat received information from the
government that a 35 foot male was taken on 18 April
2011 (IWC/63/18). This year, the Secretariat was informed
that a 33.75 foot female was taken on 14 April 2012. The
Committee was pleased to hear that genetic samples and
photographs were taken and that the USA and St. Vincent
and The Grenadines have discussed the transfer of tissue
samples from this whale for analysis and storage at SWFSC
(the IWC archive where inter alia SOWER samples are
stored) and the sample is now in the USA. Iguez reported
that he had received information on a hunt on 11 April 2012
and a struck and lost animal on 22 March 2012.
The Committee also repeated its previous recommendations that St. Vincent and The Grenadines:
(1) provide catch data, including the length of harvested
animals, to the Committee; and
(2) that genetic samples be obtained for any harvested
animals as well as fluke photographs, and that this
information be submitted to appropriate catalogues and
collections.
In recent years, the Committee has agreed that the
animals found off St. Vincent and The Grenadines are part
of the large West Indies breeding population (11,570; 95%
CI 10,290-13,390). The Commission adopted a total block
catch limit of 20 for the period 2008-12.
The Committee repeated its advice of last year that this
block catch limit will not harm the stock.
The need statement for the Bequian hunt is given as IWC/64/
ASW11. In response to a request by the Chair, St. Vincent
and The Grenadines provided a short summary of its need
statement and this is given as Appendix 8. The strike/catch
limit requests from St. Vincent and The Grenadines is at the

same level as before although scaled to a six-year block.
With respect to the recommendations, St. Vincent and
The Grenadines noted that it had been unable to attend
the meeting last year and this led to some complications.
It recognised the need for timely reporting and noted that
it tries to inform the Secretariat immediately but there
appeared to have been a communication problem last year.
Updated details for 2010 and 2011 are with the Secretariat.
It noted its desire to improve the provision of information
and of the efficiency and welfare aspects of the hunt and
thanked the USA for its help in this regard, especially
with analysis of genetic samples. While it recognised that
obtaining photographs of the underside of the flukes was
preferable, it noted that this was difficult given that animals
were flensed. It drew attention to previous discussions in this
Sub-Committee and in the Working Group on Whale Killing
Methods and Animal Welfare Issues about the importance
of improving weaponry in conjunction with outside experts
and with respect to local traditions. It noted that it was in
discussion with countries with the relevant expertise about
improved equipment (the existing darting guns are from the
last century). It also noted that it would appreciate assistance
in repairing its winching slope. A modest budget would be
required for improvements in animal welfare.
A number of comments were made with respect to the
need statement and provision of data.
The USA noted that it met bilaterally with St. Vincent and
The Grenadines last November with a two-fold purpose. First,
given that St. Vincent and The Grenadines missed IWC/64, the
USA encouraged it to stay as a member of the IWC if it planned
to continue an ASW hunt. Secondly, the USA encouraged it
to improve its reporting requirements to the Commission and
the Scientific Committee. The USA was encouraged by the
responses and was pleased to work cooperatively with the
Government of St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Argentina noted that it had not had time to read the need
statement in detail yet. It requested information on previous
genetic samples and photographs and St. Vincent and The
Grenadines agreed to provide this information during the
Annual Meeting. St. Lucia noted that in previous years it
had submitted fluke photographs from the Bequia hunt to the
North Atlantic Humpback Catalogue and that it was willing
to assist St. Vincent and The Grenadines with respect to
photographs and the improved provision of information to
the Commission in the future.
85
The UK welcomed the submission of biological samples,

photographs and other data from hunts that have been
requested annually by the Scientific Committee, as well
as information needed by the Commission and working
groups. It encouraged timely provision of such information
in the future. It also welcomed the willingness of St. Vincent
and The Grenadines to improve the humaneness of the hunt
and it hoped that this would include the provision of data to,
and co-operation with the meetings and workshops of the
Working Group on Whale Killing Methods.
With respect to the needs statement, the Dominican
Republic believed that the request was excessive. In its
opinion whaling was not an aboriginal fishery as there were
no longer indigenous Caribbeans left. It believed there was
confusion between a family tradition and a cultural tradition
and that the hunt did not contribute substantially to the
nutritional needs of St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Denmark commented that it supported the needs
statement and noted that the hunt was sustainable.
6.9 Statement from the ASW countries
Greenland, on behalf of all ASW countries made a common
statement that the aboriginal subsistence delegations from the
countries of Denmark on behalf of Greenland, the Russian
Federation on behalf of the Chukotka natives, St. Vincent
and The Grenadines on behalf of Bequian whalers, and the
USA on behalf of the Alaska Eskimos and the Makah Tribe,
agreed that ASW hunts are important for food security and
reaffirmed the following four major points affecting each
aboriginal hunt agreed at IWC/58, which are that:
(1) subsistence hunting is for food to meet cultural and
nutritional needs;
(2) the safety of his crew is a whaling captains most
important responsibility;
(3) with safety assured, achieving a humane death for the
whale is the highest priority; and
(4) efforts to modernise whaling equipment and practices can
only be made within the context of each communities
economic resources and the need to preserve the continuity of hunting traditions.
The full statement is given as Appendix 9.
7. OTHER MATTERS
No other matters were raised.
8. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT
The report was adopted by email on 30 June 2012.
86
Appendix 1
List of Participants
Argentina
Victor Marzari
Miguel Iguez
Iceland
sta Einarsdottr
Gisli Vkingsson
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Australia
Donna Petrachenko
Pam Eiser
Nick Gales
Stephanie Ierino
Chris Schweitzer
Victoria Wadley
Alexia Wellbelove
Italy
Plinio Conte
Caterina Fortuna
Francesca Granata
Spain
Santiago Lens
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Michael Stachowitsch
Belgium
Frederic Chemay
Fabian Ritter
Chile
Barbara Galletti Vernazzi
Colombia
Lilian Florez Gonzalez
Japan
Kenji Kagawa
Dan Goodman
Shinji Hiruma
Kiyoshi Katsuyama
Toshihide Kitakado
Tomio Miyashita
Akiko Muramoto
Kayo Ohmagari
Takaaki Sakamoto
Akima Umezawa
Korea, Republic of
Du Hae An
Yong-Rock An
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
Switzerland
Bruno Mainini
Martin Krebs
UK
Nicola Clarke
Nigel Gooding
James Gray
Jenny Lonsdale
Mark Simmonds
Anju Sharda
Jolyon Thomson
France
Martine Bigan
Jean Philippe Gavois
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko
Olga Etylina
Alexiy Ottoy
USA
Melissa Andersen
Greig Arnold
Charlotte Brower
Keith Benes
Ryland Bowechop
Eugene Brower
Robert Brownell
Douglas DeMaster
Roger Eckert
Brian Gruber
Keith Johnson
Peter Jones
Taryn Kiekow
Michael Lawrence
Ira New Breast
George Noongwook
Lisa Phelps
Allison Reed
Ann Renker
Rollie Schmitten
DJ Schubert
Jonathan Scordino
Michael Tillman
Ryan Wulff
Germany
Walter Duebner
Lutz Friedrichsen
Karl-Hermann Kock
St. Lucia
Jeannine Compton-Antoine
Sc Chair
Debra Palka
St. Vincent and The

Grenadines
Raymond Ryan
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Greg Donovan
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Ricardo Meneses
Javier Rodriquez
Denmark
le Samsing
Leif Fontaine
Amalie Jessen
Gitte Hundahl
Nette Levermann
Martin Mennecke
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez
Ecuador
Gustavo Iturralde
Jorge Samaniego
Ghana
Mike Akyeampong
Mexico
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho
Yolanda Alaniz
Netherlands
Peter Bos
New Zealand
Gerard van Bohemen
Louise Chilvers
Karena Lyons
Norway
le David Stenseth
Egil en
Kathrine Ryeng
Truls Soloy
Einar Tallaken
Lars Walle
Hild Ynessdal
87
Appendix 2
List of Documents
IWC/64/ASW
1 Draft Agenda
2 List of documents
3 Quantification of subsistence and cultural need for bowhead whales by Alaskan Eskimos (submitted
by the USA)
4 Whale hunting and the Makah Tribe: A needs statement (submitted by the USA)
5 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Working Group
6 Rationale of subsistence and cultural needs for gray whales and bowhead whales by indigenous people
of Chukotka (Russian Federation) in 2013-2018 (submitted by the Russian Federation)
7 White paper on management and utilization of large whales in Greenland (submitted by Greenland
(Denmark))
8 Note on the Greenland needs statement (submitted by Greenland (Denmark))
9 Aboriginal harvest of whales by Russian indigenous people in 2011 (submitted by the Russian
Federation)
10 Progress on conversion factors for the Greenlandic hunt (submitted by Greenland (Denmark))
11 Bequian whaling a statement of need (submitted by St. Vincent and The Grenadines)
Agenda Item
6.1.2
6.2.2
5.1
6.1.2, 6.2.2
6.7
6.7
6.2
3.1
6.8
Appendix 3
Agenda
1. Introductory items
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure
3.1 Progress with the Greenlandic Research Programme
3.2 Implementation Review for gray whales
4. Aboriginal Whaling Scheme (AWS)
4.2 Discussion and recommendations
5. ASW Working Group
5.1 Report of the Ad Hoc Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling Working Group
5.2 Discussion and recommendations (including work
plan)
6. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch limits
6.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas (B-C-B) stock of
bowhead whales
6.2 North Pacific Eastern stock of gray whales

6. 3 Common minke whale stocks off Greenland
6.4 West Greenland stock of fin whales
6.5 West Greenland stock of bowhead whales
6.6 Humpback whales off West Greenland
6.7 Consideration of need for the Greenlandic hunts
6.7.1 Need statement by Greenland
6.8 North Atlantic humpback whales off St. Vincent
and The Grenadines
6.9 Statement from the ASW countries
7. Other matters
8. Adoption of the report
88
Appendix 4
Summary Need Statement on Behalf of the USA Regarding the Bowhead Whale Hunt
Based on 2010 US Census data, the number of bowheads

needed by each community and by the region as a whole
(all 11 communities), to meet nutritional and cultural
requirements, is derived by multiplying the mean number of
whales landed per capita over the base time period (1910-69)
by the 2010 Alaska Native population for each community
and for the region as a whole. Using this method, the need
for each community is shown in Table 1. Based on the 2010
census data, the cultural and subsistence need in the 11
Alaska Eskimo communities is 55 landed bowhead whales
(58 if rounded up for each community). In 1997 the need was
54 landed bowheads (56 rounded up), and in 2002 and 2007,
it was 56 landed bowheads (56 and 58 landed bowheads
rounded up respectively). Applying the mean of 0.008515
bowhead whales landed per capita for all 11 communities for
the historical period (1910-69) to the 2010 regional Native
population of 6,674 results in a 2010 regional cultural and
subsistence need of 57 landed bowhead whales. In 1997, this
regional calculation was 56 landed bowhead whales and in
2002 and 2007, it was 57 landed bowhead whales.
The 2012 update of the Quantification of Subsistence and

Cultural Need for Bowhead Whales by Alaska Eskimos,
prepared by Stephen R. Braund & Associates, is based on
the 2010 United States population census and employs the
methodology accepted by the IWC in 1986 and further
refined for the 1988 Annual Meeting. Like the 2002 and
2007 reports, this document is intended to be an addendum
to their Quantification of Subsistence and Cultural Need for
Bowhead Whales by Alaska Eskimos - 1997 Update Based
on 1997 Alaska Department of Labor Data. In the original
calculation of subsistence need for bowhead whales and in
all subsequent updates, only the Native population of each
community is considered.
In previous subsistence and cultural needs assessments
submitted to the IWC for years between the decennial US
Census, including the 2007 report, the calculation depended
on the most current Alaska Department of Labor Data
population estimates for the communities multiplied by the
percent Native from the 1980 and 1990 US Census. However,
the most reliable information for assessing subsistence and
cultural need using the IWC accepted method is to rely on
the US Census. Thus, the 2012 needs assessment is based on
the 2010 US Census.
table 1
eleven Alaska eskimo whaling villages subsistence and cultural need for landed bowhead whales, 2010.
Community
number of
observations
Total eskimo population

for each year of a
bowhead observation
number of
bowheads
landed 1910-69
mean landed per

2010 Alaska
capita 1910-69 native population
2010 bowhead
need (landed)
2010 need
(landed)
rounded
Gambell
Savoonga
Wales
Diomede
Kivalina
Point Hope
Point lay
Wainwright
Barrow
Nuiqsut
Kaktovik
Totals
39
0
42
30
7
50
34
49
60
0
3
314
11,883
6,907
3,250
926
12,467
2,080
10,723
44,687
327
93,250
68
5
11
3
209
8
108
379
3
794
0.005722
0.005722
0.000724
0.003678
0.003240
0.016764
0.003846
0.010072
0.008481
0.008481
0.009174
654
637
136
110
366
629
168
510
2,889
360
215
6,674
3.7
3.6
0.1
0.4
1.2
10.5
0.6
5.1
24.5
3.1
2.0
54.9
4
4
1
1
1
12
1
5
25
3
2
58
Region
314
93,250
794
0.008515
6,674
56.8
57
89
Appendix 5
Summary of Need Statement on Behalf of the Russian Federation
Chukotka is the only place in Russia where traditional
whaling is a point of special importance. The very process
of hunting for gray whales and bowhead whales and further
use of whale products in life are essential for preserving the
culture and spirit of indigenous peoples. All edible parts of
these cetaceans are included in the diet, while inedible parts
are fully used within the household. Meat, organs and fat
are used as food. Whale bones and baleen have been used
for thousands of years to make equipment, weapons, tools,
decorations and toys, parts of reindeer and dog sledges and
parts of marine boats. The skulls, large jaw bones and ribs
of the whale are used in the construction of storage items for
food and to store boats while other parts are used for drying
clothes, meat and fish in open air. Skins of marine mammals
are also used for clothes and boots, belts and covering of
traditional boats. Sinews of whales are used for sewing fur
clothes and for sewing together walrus skins and making
envelopes of skin boats. Whale products are also used
for sled dog food. Therefore, any whale product finds its
application in either material or spiritual life of indigenous
people, and traditional hunting for marine mammals is
generally based on the principle of rational use and wastefree consumption. Whale harvest defines the social, cultural
and economic structure of coastal villages and plays a
significant role in the traditional relationship between
reindeer herding families and maritime hunters. Economic
relations go further than simple exchange of meat, blubber
and other food. The equipment of reindeer herding families
often includes parts of marine mammal skins. Cloaks made
of whale intestines are highly valued by reindeer people
because of their evaporation features, which allows people
to remain dry through the day. Therefore, traditional whaling
is a part and parcel of the existence of Chukotkas native
people, both from the point of physical survival and from the
point of cultural continuity, which finally defines uniqueness
and originality of the people of the Far North.
People have hunted for gray whales in Chukotka since
prehistoric times. In the modern period (20th-21st centuries),
the most intensive whaling was from 1960-90, when the
annual take reached about 160-170 whales. After that,
the harvest declined due to political, economic and social
changes in Russia from 1992-97. Since 1998 until the
present, the average annual take of gray whales has been
about 120 individuals. Thus, the decline in the number of
taken whales was 28% compared to the Soviet Union period.
At present, native communities and family enterprises are
involved in traditional whaling in over 20 villages and
settlements of Chukotka.
Whale hunting methods and other aspects of the harvest
have changed after the Soviet Union period due to the
obsolete whaling fleet. The stable trend is for an increase
in the number of younger animals harvested. These whales
are shorter and weigh less. They are preferable targets for
indigenous hunters as they are easier to kill, easier to tow
and easier to flense. All these points define the targeting of
the whale to a great extent.
In addition, the easier killing of smaller animals leads
to a shortening of the time to death. This is a positive factor
from the point of the humaneness of whaling. The trend is
shown by an almost one-half decrease in the average time to
death over the last 10 years.
Bowhead whales are harvested in small numbers, and the

take is irregular (0-3 animals per year).
The severe climate of Chukotka defines the very specific
nutritional needs for indigenous people. Food that is rich in
protein and fat, such as marine mammal meat and blubber,
is essential. Studies of the diet in native residents show
that absence of whale meat in meals causes a number of
potentially lethal diseases such as atherosclerosis, diabetes
and others. Therefore, replacement of gray and bowhead
whale products by any other food is impossible for many
social, cultural, psychological and physiological reasons.
Substitution of bowhead whale meat by meat of gray
whales is also infeasible, because their tastes differ, they
are available for hunting at different times and their cultural
values for native people are not comparable.
The total annual consumption of all marine mammal
products in the mid-1980s was about 1,600 tons, providing
over 100kg of meat, blubber, etc. for each person per year.
The consumption of whale products decreased sharply from
1992-96, primarily because of the small numbers of taken
whales. The average annual gross weight of the 160-170
whales taken from 1969-91 was about 3,000 tons, while the
gross weight of the 120 whales taken in recent years is only
1,200-1,300 tons per year. Thus the 28% decrease in the
number of whales taken whales has resulted in a 57% loss in
actual production due to changes in targeting of whales with
a preference towards smaller individuals.
A total of 11,500 residents of Chukotka depend directly
on sealing and whaling. At least 1,150 tons of meat annually
are required to provide the personal consumption of meat
products at levels of about 100kg per year. About 120 gray
whales have been taken annually in recent years. The total
weight of meat products from those whales is roughly 400
tons, which is slightly higher than 30% of the required
amount. Reindeer and various kinds of imported meat
cannot fully substitute whale products. Taking into account
the average weight of whales recently harvested, an annual
additional take of 225 whales would be necessary to provide
the 750 tons of meat products required. Therefore, the total
annual requirement in numbers of whales is 345. To meet
these needs, a smaller number of animals could be taken if
the average size/weight of harvested whales increased, but
this will require larger boats and more powerful outboard
engines. These technical improvements cannot be achieved
in a short time. In addition, hunting larger and aggressive
whales causes higher risk of loss.
The Russian Federation consider that the needs of the
native people of Chukotka is 350 gray whales and 5 bowhead
whales. This is based on historical harvest, present stock
state, cultural and nutritional requirements of people, and
an assumption that taken whales will be of the same size as
animals that have been harvested in recent years. Taking into
account losses of animals during hunt (struck and lost) and
stinky inedible gray whales (assumed about 10 individuals
per year), sustainable level of strikes and landings for
eastern gray whales will be 150 and 7 bowhead whale
individuals per year, if the block quota for the population
is not exceeded. That should be taken into consideration for
the future quota together with presence of inedible stinky
90
whales in the total catch. However, the reality is that for

technical reasons native people are not able now to take as
many whales as they need.
All above-mentioned factors set the framework for
recommendations on the forthcoming quota. Therefore,
the Russian Federation considers that it is reasonable and
documentarily proven to maintain the status quo for gray
whale and bowhead whale quotas for seasons 2013-18 to
meet the traditional needs of native people in Chukotka.
The Russian Federation considers that it is reasonable to
maintain the status quo for the years 2013-18 the number of
gray whale landed in Chukotka shall not exceed 720 eastern
gray whales, and annual number of landings shall not exceed

135 (except stinky whales).
The Russian Federation considers that it is reasonable
to maintain the status quo for the years 2013-18 such that
the total number of bowhead whale landed in Chukotka
shall not exceed 30. For each of these years the number of
bowhead whales struck shall not exceed 7, except that any
unused portion of a strike quota from any year (including
2 unused strikes from the 2008-12 quota) shall be carried
forward and added to the strike quotas of any subsequent
years, provided that no more than 2 strikes shall be added to
the strike quota for any one year.
Appendix 6
Summary of Need Statement on behalf of the usa regarding the makah tribe
gray whale hunt
The need statement for the overall gray whale catch limits
supports the renewal of a status quo catch limit for the
6-year period 2013 to 2018. The Scientific Committee
Report indicates the requested catch limit discussed in the
needs statement is sustainable.
The Makah Tribe has a documented history of whaling
activities that date back at least 2,000 years. Whaling
continues to be of central importance to Makah Tribal
culture, identity, and health, and is a key part in the education
of the Tribes children. We have discussed the importance of
Makah whaling to its subsistence, culture, and identity at
past IWC meetings, so it is the intention here to concentrate
on current information that supports the importance of
whaling to contemporary tribal members.
In addition to a thorough anthropological discussion of
Makah whaling, the current Need Statement for the Makah
Tribe conveys a number of important points regarding the
Tribes whaling activities, as follows.
(1) A household survey conducted in December 2011
indicated that an overwhelming number of Makah
reservation residents continue to support the Tribes
whaling efforts. The survey also indicated that 90.6%
of households wanted more access to whale products,

and desired to incorporate whale products into their
regular diets. The majority of survey respondents saw
traditional foods as a means to increase the health of
Tribal members while reducing nutritionally-based
diseases that plague the tribe. Nutrigenomic research
supports this opinion.
(2) Additional data from the 2011 Household Survey
demonstrated the Tribes commitment to preserving its
whaling activities. 85.2% of respondents indicated that
whaling has had a positive impact on the Tribe, with
a strong majority characterising the primary benefits
in terms of cultural maintenance, tribal unity, and an
improved quality of life. A clean and sober lifestyle was
independently related to whaling by half of the survey
respondents.
The Need Statement clearly indicates that the Makah
community has a continuing subsistence, and cultural need
for whale products. The Tribes members desire and support
opportunities to maintain the central role that the whale has
provided for the Tribes health and well-being for at least the
last two thousand years.
91
Appendix 7
Summary of Need Statement on behalf of Greenland/denmark
Denmark/Greenland are of the firm conviction that it has
to be up to the politically responsible organisation to define
needs in relation to whales subject to IWC management
rules, not the IWC itself as was stated for the bowhead whale
case in the Resolution passed in 1979.
After the introduction of Self-Governance in 2009
the Government of Greenlands policy is to increase its
utilisation of natural resources due to reduction in economic
means and reduction of the subsidy from Denmark.
The discussion of Greenlandic need for whale products
and its multispecies component dates back to discussions
within the IWC from the late 1970s and considerable
documentation has been presented over the years and
discussed at the IWC Annual Meetings.
The Greenlandic hunt is a multispecies hunt and for this
reason, the need statement has traditionally been expressed
in terms of tons of meat/edible products of large whales,
rather than in individual animals by species.
The catch of individual species varied over the years due
to a number of factors (ice and climatic conditions, weather,
availability). If the result of the hunt, on one individual
species, lead to an unsatisfactory result, then the hunt on
other species might help to attain the objective of overall
food security or an approximation to that objective.
The prospects of obtaining approval from the IWC for
quotas for 2013-18 are particularly good for a number of
reasons.
(1) the IWC Scientific Committee has recently approved

estimates of abundance for the relevant stocks.
(2) The control and monitoring systems are functioning
well and the block quotas for the period 2008-12 have
not been exceeded.
(3) With the current quotas, Greenland is 100 tons short of
the documented need of 670 tons of meat from large
whales that was approved by the IWC in 1991.
With robust advice from the Scientific Committee, the
IWC should be able to approve quotas for Greenland that
are following the biological recommendation. These quotas
would be sustainable and the hunt would be well regulated.
Furthermore, Greenland will continue working actively on
improving the welfare aspects of whale hunting and its data
collection.
The Greenland Government hopes that the IWC will
be able to take management decisions based on the best
available scientific knowledge and respect for the cultural,
nutritional and economical needs of Greenlanders and in
this respect also fulfil the obligation of the IWC Convention.
Allowing Greenland to obtain sufficient whale meat to
fulfil the documented need will be a way to protect the
environment by rationally utilising the natural resources at
hand.
Appendix 8
Summary of Need Statement on behalf of st. vincent and the grenadines
Background
St. Vincent and The Grenadines is an island nation in the
eastern Caribbean Sea made up of the eponymous main island
of St. Vincent and a number of smaller islands collectively
called The Grenadines. The largest of The Grenadines is
Bequia, which lies only a few miles from St. Vincent. The
population as of 2010 in St. Vincent and The Grenadines was
97,064, of which about 91,064 live on St. Vincent and about
6,000 live in the northern Grenadines. The main occupations
on Bequia are tourism and fishing, and services. The average
per capita income from full and part-time employment is
about $2,700EC (Eastern Caribbean dollars or $900US).
From early times, even before the Europeans arrived,
what is now St. Vincent and The Grenadines, akin to other
island states in the eastern Caribbean, used the smaller
cetaceans as a source of meat for food. Later, in the late
18th and early 19th century whale oil became the important
commodity and item of trade and was much in demand
to light homes and buildings in the Americas and Europe.
American and European whaling ships passed through the
islands using them as transshipment points for whale oil, and
also to hire seamen to work on board. These men learnt how
to hunt the great whales, and passed the methods on to the
islanders of the eastern Caribbean.
Aboriginal whaling in Bequia

The Bequian whaleboat is made of wood and locally built to
a design almost unchanged since the early 19th century. At
present there are two boats operating. The boats are about
8.2m long by 2.1m wide and 1m deep. They do not have
engines. They have a mast, sails and oars. Each carries a
crew of six men: four oarsmen, a harpooner and the captain.
When there is wind the boats use their sails while
searching for whales and to pursue them. When the boat gets
close to the whale the harpooner throws a harpoon. Once
the whale is struck the harpooner throws a second and third
harpoon if he can, and the bow oarsman lowers the sail and
mast. The boat is then hauled close and the whale is killed
with a lance, or a bomb lance if needed. The whale is towed
ashore to the station on Semple Cay and flensed. The meat,
blubber and bone are shared out to the crew. An old darting
gun is currently being used and efforts are currently being
made to improve the technology to reduce the time to death
of each whale harvested.
Establishing need
There are three aspects to the exercise of establishing Need
for whales by Bequia, St. Vincent and The Grenadines (see
overleaf).
92
(1) Social and cultural

On Bequia people consider whales to be a resource that
should be used as long as the use is sustainable. The whalers
are honoured because whaling in Bequia is an old tradition
that requires skill and bravery on the part of the whalers.
The islanders take pride in their success and welcome the
contribution of meat and fat to the island diet. Whalers
and whale songs are part of the folk-art of Bequia. Hisashi
(2001)1 has witnessed the blessing of the whaleboats that
takes place before the whaling season begins each year. He
noted that the Anglican priest blesses the boats, prays for
the safety of the crews, and for a successful hunt before the
boats are launched.
When a whale is landed it is a major event in St. Vincent,
and people come from the other islands to try to get some
fresh whale meat. The fresh meat and blubber are shared out
to the crew and owners of the boats, and they give some to
friends and relatives, and sell some to the other Bequians.
(2) Nutrition
Meat from whales taken in the Bequia hunt substitute for
imported animal protein. Some of the produce is sent to St.
Vincent and The Grenadines, so this estimate of percent
substitution is biased.
In 2002 and 2007, the whales are estimated to substitute
for 12% of the animal protein need. The 2012 population
of Bequia remained relatively constant, and four whales
continues to substitute for about 12% of the annual animal
protein need.
1
H. Hisashi. 2001. Bequia whaling revisited. Sonada Journal (Japan) 36: 41-57.
(3) Economics
The third aspect to be considered in evaluating the need
in Bequia for whale meat is economic. In 2002, the meat
from two whales substituted for 7% of the value of the
imports in terms of foreign exchange savings. Foreign
exchange savings from food produced locally are extremely
important to island economies that are not self-sufficient in
foodstuffs. By 2007, the foreign exchange savings generated
by the distribution of the products of Bequian whaling are
calculated to remain relatively constant.
Conclusions
The cultural and nutritional need for whale products by
Bequia was established by, and accepted by, the IWC in
2007. There appears to have been no quantitative estimation
process used, and instead the level was established to be
the level currently taken on average, namely two whales.
It should be noted that the take of four whales in 2007 only
satisfied 12% of the nutritional need, and 7% of the foreign
exchange savings from substituting whale meat for imported
meat and poultry. St. Vincent and The Grenadines was
allowed a take of four to greater address need.
Since that date the need continues given that the
population remains fairly constant on the island. In order to
satisfy an equivalent 12% in terms of 2012 population size,
a quota of four humpback whales is needed. The relation
between need and population size may not be sustainable
in the long term, but should not be of concern here where
the resource clearly is capable of meeting the need with a
sustainable harvest.
Appendix 9
Statement of the aboriginal subsistence whaling caucus
The aboriginal subsistence delegations from the countries
of Denmark on behalf of Greenland, the Russian Federation
on behalf of the Chukotka natives, St. Vincent and The
Grenadines on behalf of Bequian whalers, and the USA on
behalf of the Alaska Eskimos and the Makah Tribe, agreed
as follows:
A. We reaffirm the four major points affecting each
aboriginal hunt agreed at IWC/58, which are that:
(1) subsistence hunting is for food to meet cultural and
nutritional needs;
(2) the safety of his crew is a whaling captains most
important responsibility;
(3) with safety assured, achieving a humane death for the
whale is the highest priority; and
(4) efforts to modernise our whaling equipment and
practices can only be made within the context of each
communities economic resources and the need to
preserve the continuity of our hunting traditions.
B. We reiterate that aboriginal subsistence whaling is
important to the food security of our communities, echoing
the declaration at Rio Plus 20 where the global community
reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing food security
and access to adequate, safe and nutritious food for present
and future generations.
C. We affirm that our hunting practices are undertaken

to provide food for local consumption, traditional needs and
sharing within and among our communities.
D. We remind the Commission and reaffirm our support
for the aboriginal subsistence management principles
the Commission adopted in 1994, which are to enable
aboriginal people to harvest whales in perpetuity at levels
appropriate to their cultural and nutritional requirements so
long as the risks of extinction to individual stocks are not
seriously increased by subsistence whaling.
E. We support the requests for catch limits made by
each of our respective governments and note that each of
those requests is for a catch limit that is sustainable based on
review by the Scientific Committee.
F. We agree that scientific research on our whale stocks is
important to ensuring the sustainability of our hunts; given
the nature of our hunting this research must be funded and in
some cases undertaken by our national governments.
G. We support the recommendations of the ASWSWG
regarding recognition of the efforts of the Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling Caucus and member governments
facilitating the exchange of technical hunting information
among members of the Caucus.
93
Annex F
Report of the Conservation Committee
Tuesday 26 June 2012, Panam City, Republic of Panama
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho welcomed delegates to the meeting.
A list of participants is given in Appendix 1.
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho (Mexico) was elected Chair.
The Committee paid tribute with a round of applause
in honour of Alexandre de Lichtervelde who died in 2011.
Alexandre had been Belgiums Commissioner since 2004
when Belgium joined the IWC. He founded the Ship Strikes
Working Group and was integral in the establishment of a
centralised ship strikes database which went online in 2009.
The database will continue to be an extremely useful tool
giving knowledge and insight into global vessel-whale
collisions. Alexandre was probably the most active member
of the Conservation Committee, and year after year was
commended for his work by its members. He had been
elected as Vice-Chair of the Conservation Committee last
year at IWC/63.
Alexandres dedication led to international initiatives
beyond the IWC, e.g. by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO), the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS) and in the shipping industry. In 2010, his work on
ship strikes culminated in an international workshop, which
Alexandre called the coronation of many years of work,
the achievements and recommendations from which will
reach far into the future. It is Alexandres legacy that ship
strikes are on the agendas of many organisations around the
world and that the issue is discussed so widely today.
Alexandre was active in other areas of the IWC and in
2010, Belgium proposed a long-term strategy towards better
small cetacean conservation. Likewise, in 2011 Belgium
submitted a paper to strengthen funding of the organisation
to the IWC. He also he took part in the future-orientated
discussions on Conservation Management Plans (CMPs)
and became one of the strongest proponents of a CMP for
the threatened population of Arabian humpback whales.
Alexandre was extraordinarily diligent and full of
expertise. Thus he did highest honour to his country.
His legacy will reach far into the future and many of his
proposals will serve as templates for the work of the IWC
for a long time to come.
1.2 Appointment of rapporteurs
Allison Reed (USA) and Cherry Allison (Secretariat) were
appointed rapporteurs.
A list of documents is given as Appendix 2.
3. INVESTIGATION OF INEDIBLE STINKY

GRAY WHALES
During the meeting of the Conservation Committee at
IWC/57 in Ulsan in 2005, it was agreed that a research
programme be established to address the issue of inedible
stinky gray whales caught by Chukotkan aboriginal
subsistence hunters.
The Russian Federation presented a report (IWC/64/
CC10) of a study of contamination problems in the gray whale
carried out from 2005 to 2011. In 2011, two of the 126 gray
whales landed were considered stinky. It was not possible
to draw conclusions on the cause of the stinky gray whales,
but the authors commented that the stink may be a result
of slow metabolism of petroleum hydrocarbons. In addition
they found concentrations of persistent organochlorines,
such as DDT, were low or not detected.
Problems associated with collecting the samples were
outlined; the lack of freezers in some villages led to some
samples being unfrozen and refrozen and some of the
chemical compounds disappearing from the samples. The
Russian Federation plans to continue this research and to
collect additional samples; they welcome other scientists to
collaborate in this work.
Stinky whales cannot be used for human or even animal
consumption as they are abhorrent and cause allergies and
diarrhoea. Thus the Russian Federation do not consider them
to be part of the quota, but rather as struck and lost whales.
3.2 Committee discussions and recommendations
The USA expressed appreciation for the research and
noted the recommendations of the Scientific Committee
for additional work in this area. The USA indicated that it
would be willing to assist the Russian Federation with the
experimental designs and analyses needed to make progress
on this problem.
Chile asked what proportion of stinky whales were
taken and whether the proportion has increased over the
years. The Russian Federation estimated that, according to
the experienced hunters from Lorima settlement who take
almost half the Chukotkan quota, approximately 10% of the
whales are stinky whales. Experienced hunters can often
identify stinky whales from the smell of the blow and avoid
catching them. Hunters in other villages are less experienced
and the percentage of whales considered as stinky by them
is unknown. It was noted that inhabitants of the whaling
villages say that sometimes walruses and some species of
fish are also stinky.
Germany drew attention to a proposal by the EU
member states concerning the effect of contamination on
cetacean health issues. Stinky whales are an example of
contamination and thus Germany supports making further
efforts to determine the reason for this effect.
The Committee thanked the Russian Federation for its
report and supported further work to determine the cause of
the stinky whale condition.
94
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex F
4. SHIP STRIKES
In 2005, the Conservation Committee agreed to address the
issue of whales being killed or seriously injured by ship
strikes, recognising that this is also a matter addressed by the
Scientific Committee. Ship strikes appear on the Scientific
Committee agenda because the Revised Management
Procedure (RMP) requires that recommended catch limits
take into account estimates of mortality from all factors
including, for example, ship strikes and bycatch. In practice
these issues are also examined in a broader conservation
and management context by the Scientific Committee than
simply the RMP. The role of the Ship Strikes Working Group
is to develop more detailed proposals and co-ordinate any
work initiated.
4.1 Report from the Scientific Committee
The Chair of the Scientific Committee reported that new
information had been received on large whale and beaked
whale ship strikes. Of particular concern were three Arabian
Sea humpback whales documented between 2000 and 2012.
This is a very small population and increasing shipping
traffic in this region is of concern to the Committee (see
also Item 8.1). Information was also presented that five out
of 71 recorded mortalities of southern right whales on the
South African coast between 1999 and 2010 bore injuries
consistent with a ship strike.
Another area of concern identified was the southern coast
of Sri Lanka. This has one of the busiest shipping routes in
the world and overlaps with an area of high whale sightings,
including blue whales. The Committee recommended that
the Secretariat send a letter to the Sri Lankan Government,
drawing their attention to the discussion of this topic and
ways in which the Committee may assist.
There is a need to better understand the variables that
affect whether a ship-struck whale will strand in order to
assist in determining total numbers of strikes as well as
where they might have occurred. There is also a need to
better understand the relationship between vessel speed and
collision risk in order to help determine mitigation measures.
The Scientific Committee received several papers on these
subjects and it recommended further studies of carcass
drift, detection and deterioration for large whales that could
be used to establish the location of death from a ship strike
or other sources. It also recommended further studies that
evaluate the risk reduction that could be achieved by speed
restrictions.
Reports were received from several recent workshops
that focused on ship strikes. These included an IMO
workshop on environmental aspects of the Polar Code,
held in Cambridge in September 2011, where there was
considerable discussion of ship strikes and the impact of
underwater noise on whales. A workshop held in London
in April 2012 focused on ship strikes in the Bay of Biscay
and made a series of recommendations, mainly dealing with
mitigation measures but also related to assessing risk.
The IWC has been developing a global database of
incidents involving collisions between vessels and whales. A
web based data entry system has now been in place for two
years but there have been few new reports submitted. The
Scientific Committee agreed that a more pro-active approach
is needed to encourage data to be entered and so repeated
the recommendation for the appointment of a dedicated
IWC ship strike data coordinator. This recommendation has
been given to the Budgetary Sub-committee.
The Conservation Committee thanked the Scientific
Committee for its valuable work and supported the
appointment of a dedicated IWC ship strike data coordinator

(although see Item 4.3 below). Belgium noted that not all
countries submit National Progress Reports and that this
hinders a proper evaluation of ship strike numbers.
4.2 Report from the Ship Strikes Working Group
There was no report this year as a result of the sad loss of
its Chair.
Belgium regretted the lack of a report this year and
suggested that the next report should cover the progress
made since the last report, thus guaranteeing a complete
representation of the issue relevant for this Working Group
as well as its achievements.
Australia noted that the issue of ship strikes is important
because it is required for healthy whale populations, for the
recovery of whale populations and for the development of
Conservation Management Plans (CMPs).
After IWC/63 a technical expert, David Mattila, was
seconded to the Secretariat to work on entanglement
response and ship strikes. He presented a report on the parts
of his work that were relevant to ship strikes (IWC/64/
CC13). While his initial work focused on large whale
entanglement, he was able to advance some of the work
of the IWC with regard to ship strikes. In particular, he
advocated the international importance of the IWCs ship
strike database, and mitigation efforts at various workshops,
symposia and conferences in which he participated. He also
represented the IWC at an international technical workshop
on the criteria for determining human-caused lethal
impact to marine mammals, held in Woods Hole, USA, in
February 2012. The findings of this workshop will be very
helpful toward finalising these criteria in the IWCs Ship
Strike Database Handbook. He has also assisted several
Commissioners and IGOs in relation to developing the
proposed workshops detailed in IWC/64/WKM&AWI12,
which include components on ship strike determination and
mitigation.
The Committee thanked David Mattila for his work and
the efforts to publicise the ship strike database, noting the
importance of this work. It also thanked the USA for making
this possible.
Belgium suggested that if the contract for the technical
expert is renewed, that he should collaborate closely with
the proposed dedicated ship strike data coordinator. The
lack of new reports to the IWC Ship Strike Database was
regrettable and Belgium agreed that a more dedicated
outreach programme should be started to promote the
existence of, and stimulate use of, the database. A ship strike
data coordinator is essential for this process. Belgium also
suggested that the leaflet produced by Belgium in several
languages should be used to make the database better known.
Australia supported the need for a database co-ordinator,
but said it was important to discuss this matter in the context
of other items that have been considered by the Conservation
Committee. Priorities for future work must be set and these
will include priorities for research.
Australia summarised cetacean ship strikes in Australian
waters for the calendar year 2011, during which time the
relevant legislation was unchanged and there were nine
ship strikes. Details are given in IWC/64/CC3. Australia is
developing a national ship strike strategy aimed at reducing the
likelihood of ship strikes in their waters. In order to increase
public awareness a ship strike database and associated
questionnaire have been developed. The data collected in
Australia through the database is fully compatible with the

IWC database and Australia recommends this approach to
other countries in order to populate the IWC database.
Belgium commended Australia for this work on ship
strikes and welcomed the creation of a regional database
which replicates the design of the IWC database, thus
facilitating the synchronisation of the two databases. Other
countries were encouraged to follow a similar approach.
Belgium urged all member countries to produce National
Ship Strike Reports, such as the one presented by Australia,
where relevant.
Mexico highlighted some items from its Voluntary Report
(IWC/64/CC20) concerning amendments to legislation, and
powers to implement measures to avoid vessel strikes and
ocean noise.
The USA presented a report of actions to reduce ship
strikes as summarised in IWC/64/CC5. This is also discussed
under Item 9. The USA noted that collisions with vessels are
a threat to all species of large whales. Two vessel routing
proposals were submitted to, and endorsed by, the IMO in
2008 to reduce the risk of ship strikes to North Atlantic right
whales. These proposals had become effective on 1 June
2009. Together with measures to prevent entanglement of
right whales in fishing gear and regulations to reduce ship
strikes by slowing ships, these changes in vessel operations
are a part of a comprehensive approach taken by the USA in
its effort to help right whales recover.
The USA introduced two new proposals, submitted to
the IMO in 2012, to amend two existing Traffic Separation
Schemes (TSS) off the USA west coast to reduce the
likelihood of ship strike deaths and serious injury to blue
and other large whales. These proposals are due to be
considered by the IMO in July 2012. The first proposal
would reduce the width of the separation zone in the TSS
approaching Santa Barbara, CA. Technological advances in
navigation systems have alleviated concerns of an increased
risk of vessel collisions due to narrowed separation zones.
Further, the US Coast Guard conducted a Port Access Route
Study in 2011, which concluded that the burden imposed
on shipping by the first proposed amendment is minimal
while the potential benefits to large whales, particularly
blue whales, may be significant. The second proposal for
approach to San Francisco, CA, will serve to reduce the risk
of marine casualties, reduce the likelihood of ship strikes
with cetaceans, and also avoid interaction between fishing
and commercial vessels.
Panama Traffic Separation Schemes
The Republic of Panama introduced a proposal (IWC/64/
CC23rev) for the establishment of Traffic Separation
Schemes (TSS) and prevention of vessel collision with
whales. The Republic of Panama is a leading maritime
country and about 17,000 commercial vessels annually transit
the Gulf of Panama. The number of Panamanian vessels has
nearly doubled in 15 years, from 3,700 to 6,200 and with the
ongoing expansion of the Panama Canal an increase in the
number and size of vessels in the area is expected. Therefore,
this initiative is aimed at improving navigational safety by
reducing the risk of collisions of merchant ships travelling
in opposite directions daily from Asia, the central Pacific
and the west coasts of North, Central and South America.
The specific establishment and implementation of TSS is
one of the first steps towards the organisation of maritime
traffic in the Gulf of Panama and other areas of commercial
navigation off the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of Panama.
The Panama Maritime Authority in conjunction with
the Panama Canal Authority, the Maritime Chamber, the
95
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Marviva

Foundation, has been working for several months on
designing four two-way TSS, three for the Pacific and one
for the Caribbean, to be presented to the IMO for their
endorsement. The three Pacific schemes are particularly
expected to reduce the potential of ship collisions and
contamination risk along seven marine protected areas.
Panama has recorded 13 whale casualties in two years,
mostly of humpback whales. The TSS will be established
in areas heavily used by several species of cetaceans,
especially humpback whales from both the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres which winter in Central America
and Panama (up to ~300 individuals per season from the
southern population visit Las Perlas Archipelago). Based
on a temporal and spatial analysis of whales tagged with
satellite transmitters and AIS transmissions from over 800
vessels, it is estimated that implementation of the scheme
would reduce the potential areas of collision between ships
and whales by ~93%.
In conclusion, the implementation of the TSS in Panama
is of vital importance for navigational safety as well as for
the protection of sensitive ecosystems and whale populations
wintering in Panama. Panama would welcome any support
or recommendations by the IWC and individual countries.
Many countries including Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile,
Belgium, USA, Ecuador, New Zealand and the UK expressed
support for the initiative by Panama on this critical issue and
hope to see more details presented at the next meetings of
the Scientific and Conservation Committees. Costa Rica has
similar concerns and would like to discuss the matter in the
Central American Commission and regional biodiversity
Commissions. Ecuador noted a similar situation in the Gulf
of Guayaquil and considered this to be a helpful initiative.
Tenerife workshop in October 2012
Aware of IWC interest in this area, Spain presented a
proposal (IWC/64/CC18) to hold an international workshop
on maritime transport and biodiversity conservation.
The workshop will seek synergy and other forms of
collaboration. A specific aim of the project is to study and
mitigate accidents affecting marine biodiversity, especially
the impacts on cetaceans and to develop a programme for
communication and training for the maritime industry. It is
hoped that shipping industry leaders, scientists and other
stakeholders will participate in the workshop to be held from
24-26 October 2012 in Tenerife, Spain.
The USA supported the workshop proposal by Spain
and noted that two of its leading experts on ship strikes are
participating on the steering committee and will be making
presentations. The workshop is the culmination of several
years of discussion on educating mariners about the threat of
ship strikes and environmentally sensitive areas. The goals
are to identify the best way to get information to mariners
and to determine the most relevant information to pass on
to them. The USA has learned from implementing various
North Atlantic right whale protection measures in USA
waters, and looks forward to working with Spain and other
interested governments to effect a reduction in ship strikes.
The USA recognised this workshop will have strong ties to
the IMO, which it views as an important step in furthering
IWC-IMO cooperation.
France and Belgium welcomed the workshop. Belgium
recalled that the Joint IWC-ACCOBAMS Workshop on Ship
Strike Mitigation, held in Beaulieu, France in 2010 focused
on the increasing problem between high speed traffic and
cetaceans in the Canary Islands, and suggested that Tenerife
was a most appropriate location for the Workshop. The
96
Beaulieu Workshop report (IWC/63/8) will be a useful

source of information for the Tenerife Workshop and
IWC/63/16 (which was a follow-up on recommendations
made and measures identified at the Beaulieu Workshop) can
be used as a guide for further negotiations with the maritime
industry. Belgium also suggested that every effort should be
made to achieve the participation of ferry industry operators
from the Canary Islands at the Workshop.
Workshops: disentanglement and ship strikes in the wider
Caribbean
The USA summarised its joint proposal with the Dominican
Republic, France, Mexico and Panama (IWC/64/
WKM&AWI12), for the IWC to work with UNEP, CEP
and SPAW to conduct a series of three workshops on
disentanglement and ship strikes in the wider Caribbean,
focusing on the interdisciplinary ship strike workshop
planned for 2013. This item was discussed in more detail
by the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and
Associated Welfare Issues. The USA hopes to expand
partnership for this effort to other interested IWC parties
and the IMO.
The agenda, terms of reference and list of participants
for this workshop have not yet been developed, and the USA
hopes the IWC will convene an IWC-led steering committee
to work with UNEP and SPAW to host this workshop in
2013. The USA recognised that this proposal originated from
Alexandre de Lichterveldes work and his communication
with UNEP and SPAW.
France, the Netherlands, Argentina and Mexico
expressed support for the workshops and the Netherlands
noted that it would be happy to participate and would look
into financial contributions.
A representative of UNEP and SPAW-RAC expressed
strong support for the proposed workshops on entanglement
and ship strikes noting that the French Agoa sanctuary for
the protection of marine mammals is also supportive and
will bring technical, logistical and financial support to the
proposal. In relation to vessel strikes, the marine mammal
action plan approved by the SPAW parties on threats to
marine mammals in the wider Caribbean region, states the
following key objectives.
(1) Improve understanding. To identify high risk areas for
vessel strikes in each country.
(2) Impact assessment. To assess the magnitude of vessel
strikes in the Wider Caribbean Region.
(3) Impact minimisation. To stimulate on-going, and initiate
new, actions at the regional, national and local level to
reduce the frequency of vessel strikes.
The UNEP and SPAW-RAC representative noted that
the extent of this problem in the Wider Caribbean Region is
poorly understood, both because of lack of data and because
a better understanding of the maritime traffic in the region is
needed. To achieve this, UNEP and SPAW-RAC propose a
collaboration with the IWC in order to better understand the
situation in the Wider Caribbean Region and find appropriate
solutions to this issue.
The Conservation Committee thanked the UNEP and
SPAW-RAC representative for the offer of collaborative
engagement and the Secretariat looked forward to
formalising the agreement in the coming months.
Strategic plan
The Conservation Committee endorsed a suggestion from
the Chair to develop a strategic plan for ship strikes which
might include data gathering and mitigation. Belgium

considered that a strategic plan would help to ensure the
effectiveness of the IWC ship strikes database.
4.4 Appointment of Chair for the Ship Strikes Working
Group
The Conservation Committee was pleased to appoint
Belgium as Chair of the Ship Strikes Working Group and
acknowledged the work of Alexandre de Lichtervelde and
of Belgium on ship strikes in the past.
5. SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALES
IN CHILE AND PERU
At its meeting in 2008, the Conservation Committee had
received reports from a Workshop on the Status of Southern
Right Whales from Chile-Peru and from the Scientific
Committee. At that meeting the Conservation Committee:
(1) stated the importance of continuing work on the status
of right whales and recommended that this issue remain a
high priority in the future work of the Scientific Committee;
and (2) agreed the item be retained on the Conservation
Committees agenda.
This item contains information concerning southern
right whales in Chile and Peru other than information related
to Conservation Action Plans which are discussed under
Item 8.
To clarify the status of this Critically Endangered and poorly
understood population and to identify any threats and possible
mitigation actions, the IWC Workshop on Southern Right
Whales and then the Scientific Committee, recommended
that surveys, photo-identification and genetic studies should
be conducted. Specifically, the following three steps were
recommended:
(1) determine geographical/temporal areas where quantitative studies can best be conducted. This can be done
by analysing existing historical whaling and sighting
data and using appropriate temporal/geographical
spatial modelling;
(2) design a systematic aerial survey programme to cover
potential calving or nursery areas; and
(3) further consider stock structure issues by examining
existing genetic samples (including museum specimens
where possible) and collect new samples from southern
Chile/Argentina.
5.2 Update on progress
Chile reported on the difficulties associated with monitoring
this very endangered population of southern right whales that
is estimated to include less than 50 mature individuals. New
information that was reported to the Scientific Committee this
year highlights the importance of the waters of Isla de Chiloe
for the species. Actions proposed in the CMP have begun to
identify the animals and areas of concentration. Previously
it had taken 2-3 days for reports of a sighting to be received,
making it very difficult to locate the animal subsequently.
The use of mobile technology is being implemented in joint
work between the Chilean Navy and the NGO Centro de
Conservacion Cetacea to enable sightings to be reported in
real time and Chile thanked Australia for the provision of
this new technology. Considering the critically endangered
status of this population, it was requested that this item
remain on the agenda of the Conservation Committee.
6. WHALEWATCHING
In 2011 the Commission endorsed an IWC Five-Year
Strategic Plan for Whalewatching pending review by the
Scientific Committee of the Plans research and assessment
objectives prior to the Commissions meeting in 2012. Also
in 2011 the Commission reviewed and updated the terms
of reference for the Conservation Committees Standing
Working Group on Whalewatching (SWG-WW), and
expanded its membership to include two members of the
The Chair of the Scientific Committee introduced the report
of their sub-committee on whalewatching which is given as
IWC/64/Rep1, Annex M. Scientific aspects of whalewatching
have been discussed formally by the Scientific Committee in
response to Commission Resolution 1994-14.
Assessment of the impacts of whalewatching on cetaceans
(see IWC/64/Rep1, Item 15.1)
A number of papers on the possible effects of whalewatching
on cetaceans were considered. The Scientific Committee
expressed concern regarding the intense and uncontrolled
dolphin watching in Bocas del Toro, Panama, and strongly
requested the Panamanian authorities enforce its relevant
whalewatching regulation. This especially applies to
requirements regarding boat numbers and approach speed
and distances. The Committee recommended continued
research to monitor this dolphin population and the impacts
of tourism on it. In this regard it welcomed the continuation
of the Cooperative Agreement between Argentina and
Panama to develop and conduct operator training workshops.
A modelling approach was presented to examine the
potential effects of dolphin watching. The authors used
health status to link individual behavioural changes to
births and deaths, assuming health can moderate these. The
Committee welcomed the use of modelling to address this
issue and suggested that Bocas del Toro might be a location
where this model could be tested.
The Scientific Committee also reviewed whalewatching
off Central America. Within this region, only Costa Rica and
Panama have organised their industries with tour operator
associations. In Guatemala and Nicaragua, whalewatching
operators are becoming organised. The Scientific Committee
was pleased to learn that workshops to train and certify
operators in best practices are being held twice a year in
Costa Rica. In Panama, operator training started in 2006 and
will continue this year. Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador
do not yet have organised whalewatching operators or
associations or whalewatching regulations.
Review reports from intersessional working groups
The objective of the LaWE (Large-Scale Whalewatching
Experiment) project is to understand the mechanisms and
possible effects of whalewatching on cetacean populations,
in order to define a framework for integrated and adaptive
management. Progress is being made and an initial analysis
was received based on information from ten researchers. A
modelling approach found there was a consistent response
across species in path linearity and changes in resting
behaviour. In addition smaller sized species and small
sized populations were less likely to rest in the presence of
whalewatching vessels.
Work continued intersessionally to develop a database to
keep track of the details of whalewatching operations worldwide. The database developer is working towards putting the
current version on the Commissions server for evaluation
by the Committee next year.
97
A questionnaire for operators of swim-with-whale

operations was field-tested on three companies in the
Dominican Republic in early 2012. Their responses indicated
that the questionnaire was appropriate and sufficient to
present more widely to operators. Further work will be
undertaken intersessionally to distribute the questionnaire to
more operators and report results in two years, at IWC/661.
Other issues
The Committee reviewed scientific aspects of the
Commissions Five-Year Strategic Plan for Whalewatching.
Detailed comments can be found in IWC/64/Rep1,
Annex M, Appendix 3. The Committee agreed that the
goal of its review was to offer the Commission advice
that will lead to results that benefit both the work of the
Conservation Committees SWG on whalewatching as well
as the Scientific Committees work. While the Scientific
Committee focused its input on Objectives 1 (Research)
and 2 (Assessment), it noted that all five objectives of
the Strategic Plan could benefit from further cooperation
between the two Committees. This is particularly true in
regards to elements such as regulatory frameworks, where
the Scientific Committee can contribute expertise, data, and
other advice. The Committee noted the ambitious scale of
the science-related work programme found in the Strategic
Plan. In particular some work identified as short-term should
be reclassified as medium to long-term. The Committee also
recommended that the Commission address issues that arise
uniquely from operations that allow customers to swim with
or feed cetaceans. An intersessional correspondence group
was established to discuss and develop guiding principles
with regard to Action 1.1 in the Strategic Plan. Action 1.2
should be completed intersessionally, with results reported
to the next meeting.
The Scientific Committee received the report of the
regional Workshop on Marine Mammal Watching held in
October 2011 in Panama City, Panama (IWC/64/CC17).
This brought together marine mammal tour operators and
government regulators from across the wider Caribbean
region. Several papers were also presented to the Scientific
Committee that utilised data collected on whalewatching
boats, including data collected during whalewatching trips
in Saman Bay, Dominican Republic and along the South
Pacific coast of Costa Rica.
It was noted that the compendiums of regulations
and guidelines on the Commission website2 were open to
additions and updates. The Scientific Committee agreed to
revisit them on a more regular basis to ensure they remain
representative of best practices and to address them under
the standing agenda item on reviewing whalewatching
guidelines and regulations.
The Scientific Committee is concerned about the
potential threat of unregulated whalewatching to the
Arabian Sea humpback whale population in addition to
the ship strikes discussed under Item 4.1. The Scientific
Committee strongly recommended that operator training
workshops should be conducted with a view to promoting
best practice for whalewatching and to aid the interpretation
and implementation of revised whalewatching guidelines. A
funding proposal has been reported to the Budgetary Subcommittee.
The Conservation Committee commended and thanked
the Scientific Committee for its work. Belgium noted that
the whalewatching sub-committees expertise had again
Due to the change at IWC/64 to biennial meetings, this will be IWC/65.
See: http://www.iwcoffice.org/whalewatching.
1
2
98
resulted in fruitful collaboration with experts from South

America. Belgium was pleased to see the new item dealing
with emerging whalewatching industries of concern and
suggested that the SWG-WW consider the questions and
topics arising from this field of work.
Regarding the problem of dolphin watching in Bocas del
Toro, Argentina reported on an agreement between Argentina
and Panama to develop a two year cooperation programme
to work on capacity building and training workshops on
whalewatching for tour operators, fishermen and scientists
from Panama. The Fondo Argentino de Cooperacin Sur-Sur
y Triangular in collaboration with the Autoridad Panamea
de Turismo (ATP) developed a whalewatching capacity
building workshop in Bocas del Toro, Panama in September
2011 to train whalewatching operators and to reduce the
impact on a resident population of bottlenose dolphins. A
second part of this programme will be developed in late
2012.
6.2 Report from the Conservation Committees
Standing Working Group on Whalewatching
The Chair of the Standing Working Group on
Whalewatching (SWG-WW) gave the report of the SWGWW (IWC/64/CC6), including the activities over the past
year, during which the group examined each section of
the Five-Year Strategic Plan (see IWC/64/CC6, Annex B).
The SWG-WW developed recommendations on how to
move forward on actions that were outside the focus of the
Scientific Committee review, and on which actions should
be implemented through the web-based living handbook.
The SWG-WW also decided that it would greatly benefit
from industry input, and recommended the inclusion of
two industry representatives on the SWG-WW as ex officio
participants. Nominees for the first two representatives were
recommended to come from Australia and Mexico, with
potential funding support from the IWC.
The SWG-WW Chair then outlined the future work the
SWG-WW, and expressed hope that the Strategic Plan will
be finalised at IWC/64. To allow for a possible Commission
decision to move to biennial meetings at IWC/64, the SWGWW proposed a plan of work for the potential intersessional
period of 2012-14. The following four recommendations of
the SWG-WW were highlighted:
(1) the addition and potential funding of two ex officio
industry representatives to the SWG-WW;
(2) the two requested documents from the Secretariat to
facilitate implementation of the Strategic Plan;
(3) the SWG-WW work plan for the proposed intersessional
period of 2012-14; and
(4) adoption, after discussion, of any accepted changes to
the Five-Year Strategic Plan suggested by the Scientific
Committee.
The SWG-WW Chair also presented document IWC/64/
CC24, which highlighted the changes to the Action Plan 201116 based on the Scientific Committee recommendations.
The Conservation Committee thanked the SWG-WW for
the good progress that has taken place on the co-ordination
of work on whalewatching during the intersessional period
and thanked Ryan Wulff for his leadership of this important
group.
Many delegates expressed support for the work of the SWGWW including the recommendations and for the Five-Year
Strategic Plan.
Belgium referred to the benefits of whalewatching for

local communities, but noted that whalewatching can also
have negative impacts on the animals. Thus, planning
and management is warranted, especially for endangered
whale populations like the Arabian Sea humpbacks.
Belgium welcomes the production of the Handbook on
whalewatching, because it focuses on the development of
whalewatching tourism as a sustainable use of cetaceans.
Furthermore, Belgium welcomes the increased dialogue
between the Scientific and Conservation Committees in
the SWG-WW as a follow up of the development of the
Five-Year Strategic Plan, in order to make full use of the
Scientific Committees expertise on whalewatching matters
and further develop science-based management options for
whalewatching
Australia expressed its willingness to take an active role in
seeking to trial the draft survey in the Pacific and, in addition,
was pleased to nominate an ex officio industry representative
to the SWG-WW. Details will be given to the Secretariat later.
Sweden drew attention to the Scientific Committee
recommendation that the Commission should address issues
that arise uniquely from operations that allow customers to
swim with or feed cetaceans. The USA acknowledged that
this item is not specifically written into the action plan as
outlined, but that the issue had been discussed within the
SWG. Following a suggestion from the Chair of the Scientific
Committee, he agreed that swim with whale and feed with
whales should be added into the general principles of the
Note section of 1.1 of the Five-Year Strategic Plan with the
addition of another letter there.
The Russian Federation observed that whalewatching is
a very developed industry of great monetary value and noted
that it would like to see the action plan include an analysis
to show the income and benefits to local communities where
whalewatching operates. Whalewatching is often run by
foreign operators and local communities may receive little
benefit.
Several countries including Argentina, New Zealand,
Ecuador, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica
reported that much of the benefit from whalewatching in
their countries does go to local communities. Argentina
noted that whalewatching in Argentina and the rest of Latin
America involved mainly former fishermen who are now
whalewatching skippers or company owners, so most of
the income goes to coastal communities. New Zealands
most successful story of whalewatching is from Kaikoura
which is organised and run by locals and has won four
international tourism awards. In Costa Rica more than 80%
of whalewatching proceeds go to local communities.
The USA highlighted some items from the revised Action
Plan listed in IWC/64/CC24: where appropriate, developing
principles should be precautionary and minimise potential
impacts; efforts should be made to maintain consistency;
a few actions were moved from short to medium or long
term; the term where appropriate is added to best possible
practice for certain sectors. The Scientific Committee has
been added to the list of possible participants for objectives 3
and 5 noting that they could also contribute to the objectives
and actions.
Mexico reported it has amended its whalewatching
regulations as listed in IWC/64/CC20, based on
precautionary principles. Chile reported that it has adopted
regulations for whalewatching tourism, taking into account
one of the recommendations of the Scientific Committee in
2007 for the southern right whale, to only allow observation
from land.
The Conservation Committee endorsed the

recommendations of the SWG-WW and adopted the FiveYear Strategic Plan.
7. WHALE SANCTUARIES
The Scientific Committee did not receive any documents
on IWC Sanctuaries, although it did receive information
related to marine mammal protected areas from the second
International Conference held in Martinique (see Item 7.2).
The Chair noted that there were no new proposals for
Sanctuaries for review this year.
The Second International Conference on Marine Mammal
Protected Areas (ICMMPA 2)
France presented the summary report (SC/64/O1) of the
Second International Conference on Marine Mammal
Protected Areas, held in Martinique, 7-11 November 2011
which sought solutions to shared problems related to marine
mammal conservation and to MMPA network and site design,
creation and management. A secondary goal was to orient
those working in MMPAs to set those protected areas in the
broader context of marine management, in order to ensure
that MMPAs are not marginalised as marine spatial planning
work advances. The conference was co-hosted by the French
MPA Agency (Agence des Aires Marines Protges) and the
USA (NOAA) and was supported by fifteen sponsors and
many other organisations.
The conference theme of Endangered Spaces,
Endangered Species was explored in keynote talks, panels
and workshops focusing on monk seals, sirenians, river
dolphins and other small and large cetaceans. Special
attention was given to the endangered vaquita. Other issues
considered included: special considerations for particularly
endangered marine mammals; refining understanding of
marine mammal critical habitat and hotspots to inform
MMPA designation; using marine spatial planning and
ecosystem-based management to address broad threats to
marine mammals; managing MMPAs for localised threats
and mitigation by spatial protection and other means;
development of MMPAs in the wider Caribbean region;
and regional cooperation for MMPA scientific and technical
networking. The proceedings will be available shortly and a
third meeting is planned for two years time.
Several nations expressed appreciation to France for
organising an excellent and productive conference. The USA
also highlighted the Sister Sanctuary agreement between
the USA and France signed in September 2011, to protect
humpback whales that migrate between the US Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the Agoa Marine
Mammal Sanctuary in the Caribbeans French Antilles.
South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS)
Argentina noted that it has supported the South Atlantic
Whale Sanctuary since it was first proposed by Brazil in
2000. The renewed proposal (IWC/64/8) presented jointly
by Brazil, South Africa, Uruguay and Argentina has a very
clear stated goal which is to promote and establish a nonlethal management regime for cetacean resources in the area
it encompasses.
Argentina prohibited the hunt of marine mammals in the
1950s and has a long whalewatching tradition which began
in 1983 in the world famous southern right whale nursery
winter ground of Pennsula Valds. Hence Argentina strongly
99
supports the non-lethal use of cetaceans. The SAWS will:

(i) provide long-term protection and recovery of cetacean
populations; (ii) support research on depleted stocks and
their habitats; and (iii) promote regional conservation
measures and educational activities, and contribute to the
development of environmentally friendly tourism along the
South American and African coasts.
Several nations reiterated their support for the SAWS
and for the principle of sanctuaries. The USA observed
that sanctuaries provide opportunities to conduct non-lethal
research on undisturbed whale stocks, including studies on
the life history and population dynamics of whales, and
many benefit local coastal communities.
Norway said that the Norwegian attitude toward whale
sanctuaries and MPAs in fisheries are well known; Norway
supports such management instruments only if scientifically
justified. It considered that there is no scientific justification
of SAWS and thus cannot support it.
Denmark noted that it was considering looking positively
on the South Atlantic Sanctuary but has not come to a final
position yet. The UK and Belgium expressed their support
for the creation of sanctuaries.
8. CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANS
At IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission endorsed a Conservation
Committee recommendation to establish a Small Working
Group on Conservation Management Plans (SWG-CMP)
with membership drawn from both the Conservation
Committee and the Scientific Committee.
Arabian Sea humpback whales
The Chair of the Scientific Committee noted that the
Arabian Sea humpback population had been identified by
the Scientific Committee as a likely candidate for an IWC
CMP. To facilitate this process an Intersessional Working
Group was formed last year. The Scientific Committee
noted the good progress that has been made in assembling
the documentation required to submit a proposal to the
IWC for a candidate CMP. Since a key component of
this, and any plan, is that it is supported by a broad range
of stakeholders including range state governments, the
Scientific Committee welcomed the work undertaken thus
far and strongly recommended that discussions between
scientists and relevant range state governments continue to
further progress the CMP process.
Southern right whales
Last year the Commission agreed that the southern
right whales of South America should be the subject of
IWC CMPs. Two draft plans were available during the
Scientific Committee meeting, one for southwest Atlantic
southern right whales (IWC/64/CC7rev1) and one for southeastern Pacific southern right whales (IWC/64/CC9). The
Committee examined these draft CMPs for their scientific
content and related actions and found them to be in accord
with the results and recommendations from the Committees
Workshop on the Status of Southern Right Whales (SC/64/
Rep3) and the Workshop on Southern Right Whale Die-off.
It was noted that the CMP for Western North Pacific
gray whales is already in action and that one of the plan
recommendations was for satellite tagging. Several whales
have been tagged and the CMP is being updated using data
from these whales.
100

Standing Working Group on CMPs
Australia introduced the report of the Standing Working
Group (SWG) on CMPs (IWC/64/CC12rev). The report of
the group includes a number of recommendations submitted
to IWC/63. The Commission had limited time at IWC/63
to fully consider the CMP documents so they are submitted
again here, noting that two of the recommendations have
already occurred:
that the CMP guidelines, templates and funding principles
presented in IWC/63/CC5 be adopted;
that these documents be placed on the IWC website for
use by members wishing to undertake a CMP;
that the Small Advisory Group on CMPs be reconstituted
as a Standing Working Group on CMPs [has occurred];
that the terms of reference for the CMP Working Group,
contained in IWC/63/CC5, be adopted [has occurred];
that the Scientific Committee be invited to undertake an
analysis of priority candidates for future CMPs; and
that the Conservation Committee be tasked with
undertaking an inventory of cetacean conservation
measures currently in place or underway in jurisdictions,
on a regional basis.
Regarding the request to the Scientific Committee for
an analysis of priority candidates for future CMPs, the
useful work reported above was acknowledged, but it was
suggested that it would be useful if the Scientific Committee
looked at this issue more broadly in order to provide a
preliminary priority list of areas that would benefit from
CMPs in future years.
In addition the SWG recommended that the Conservation
Committee endorse the following recommendations for
cetacean conservation measures in the Pacific Islands
Region, with a focus on Oceania humpback whales:
that the Commission note the Review of Measures
for Marine Mammal Conservation, Protection and
Management in the Pacific Islands Region in 2007 by
IFAW and SPREP;
that the Commission acknowledge the significant
cetacean conservation measures currently in place
to protect cetaceans in the Pacific Islands region, as
identified in this inventory;
that the Commission recognise the leadership of SPREP
in advancing cetacean conservation in the Pacific Islands
region, including through implementation of its regional
Whale and Dolphin Action Plan and its partnership
with CMS on the CMS Pacific Cetaceans MoU, and the
important role of organisations such as the South Pacific
Whale Research Consortium;
that the Secretariat write to SPREP advising it of the
work of the Standing Working Group on CMPs and
inviting SPREP to participate as an observer to the
Working Group;
subject to the views of SPREP and the Pacific Island
Contracting Parties, if this inventory is considered a
useful model it is proposed that the Chair of the Working
Group contact SPREP with a view to exploring options
to further refine the inventory;
that similar regional inventories be developed for regions
around the globe as part of the work of the Conservation
Committee; and
that regional inventories of cetacean conservation
measures should be updated periodically (every 5-10
years or as appropriate).
The Conservation Committee thanked the SWG for its
work and endorsed all of the above recommendations
including the request for the Scientific Committee to provide

a priority list and the invitation to SPREP to participate as
an observer. The Secretariat confirmed that they could
implement the request to SPREP.
The USA expressed continued support for conservation
management plans as they reaffirm the conservation
objective of the Convention and improve the Commissions
conservation work.
Last year the IWC agreed to nominate the South American
southern right whale population for a CMP (IWC/63/CC4).
Workshops held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in September
2011 recommended that the plan be separated into two, one
for the southwest Atlantic southern right whale and one for
the southeast Pacific right whales.
Southwest Atlantic southern right whales
Argentina introduced IWC/64/CC7rev1, the CMP for the
southwest Atlantic southern right whale (CMP SWA SRW).
A Workshop was held in Buenos Aires from 19-20 September
2011 to begin the development of this CMP, at which three
documents were considered: (i) Report of the Southern Right
Whale Die-Off Workshop, Puerto Madryn, Argentina, 15-18
March 2010; (ii) Draft Proposal for an Action Plan for the
Recovery of Eastern South Pacific Southern Right Whales
in Chile (IWC/63/CC21rev); and (iii) Conclusions and
Outcomes of the IWC Southern Right Whale Assessment
Workshop held in Buenos Aires from 13-16 September
2011. The overall objective of the CMP is to protect the
southern right whale habitat and minimise anthropogenic
threats to maximise the likelihood that southern right whales
will recover to healthy levels and recolonise their historical
range.
The following nine high priority actions were identified:
(i)
implementation of the CMP;
(ii) develop a strategy to increase public awareness
(iii) determine movements, migration routes and
location of feeding ground(s) through satellite
telemetry;
(iv) development of a GIS (META) database on
information on human activities that might have
an adverse impact on whales;
(v) ensure long-term monitoring of abundance,
trends and biological parameters through photoidentification and biopsy sampling;
(vi) enhance the existing stranding networks including
the capacity for undertaking post-mortems;
(vii) development of a regional entanglement response
strategy;
(viii) develop and implement a strategy to minimise
kelp gull harassment; and
(ix) establishment of an expert advisory panel.
The most critical and urgent action is the implementation
of the CMP SWA SRW. Funding must be found for this
action as soon as possible to appoint a Coordinator and set up
the Steering Group to ensure that the plan moves ahead in a
timely fashion. The estimated cost would be about 50,000,
to include funding of the first meeting of the interim steering
committee and the salary of a coordinator.
The Committee thanked Argentina for the excellent
work undertaken. The USA indicated that it is important to
start with populations that are either critically endangered
like the right whales found off Chile and Peru or ones like
right whales in the South Atlantic where there is a special
conservation need.
The Conservation Committee endorsed the CMP for the

southwest Atlantic southern right whale and recommends it
to the Commission, noting the need for funding.
Southeast Pacific southern right whales
Chile introduced the CMP for southeast Pacific right whales
(IWC/64/CC9), a species which is critically endangered and
is estimated to include less than 50 mature individuals. The
CMP is based on Chiles national plan of action submitted
last year (IWC/63/CC21rev), so some actions of the plan
are already operational. The objective is to take steps which
will allow the species to withstand both environmental and
anthropogenic impacts and ensure its long term survival.
Lack of information is the biggest limitation to protection, so
the short term objectives focus on: (1) compiling a baseline
of information to include in particular population size and
area of concentration, breeding and feeding grounds, stock
structure, etc.; (2) conducting a detailed assessment of
potential impacts in identified areas of concentration; and
(3) developing specific mitigations despite the shortage of
information.
The work done during the Argentina workshop and by
the drafting group identified the following priority actions:
implementation of the CMP and establishment of a
Coordinator and Steering Committee;
development of a web-based exchange of scientific
information;
development of a strategy to increase public awareness
create capacities in coastal communities on species
identification and sightings reporting and documentation;
development of a web-based platform to report southern
right whale sightings;
increase documentation of sightings and photoidentification of individuals;
start collection of genetic samples;
identify breeding area(s) for southern right whales;
ensure long-term monitoring of distribution, abundance
and trends of southern right whales;
ensure long-term monitoring of potential threats and
effectiveness of mitigation measures;
release entangled whales and prevent entanglements;
develop and implement contingency plan to afford
maximum protection when a sighting is recorded; and
inclusion of right whale conservation considerations
and mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact
Evaluation and Permitting System for Large-Scale
Coastal/Marine Projects.
The Conservation Committee thanked Chile for their
excellent work, endorsed the CMP for the southeast Pacific
right whale and recommends it to the Commission.
9. NATIONAL REPORTS ON CETACEAN
CONSERVATION
Several countries had submitted voluntary national cetacean
conservation reports: Argentina (IWC/64/CC15), Australia
(IWC/64/CC4), Brazil (IWC/64/CC22), Chile (IWC/64/
CC21), France (IWC/64/CC14), Mexico (IWC/64/CC20),
New Zealand (IWC/64/CC19), UK (IWC/64/CC8) and USA
(IWC/64/CC5). The Committee welcomed these reports,
many parts of which have been discussed under earlier
items. More countries were encouraged to submit reports in
future.
Australia was pleased to highlight the completion of
a national network of marine reserves around Australias
entire EEZ which was announced only two weeks ago.
101
This integrative representative network fulfilled Australias

commitment under the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
to establish representative networks by 2012. It will be of
benefit to cetaceans by identifying key critical habitats and
putting in place appropriate degrees of protection to enable
the sustainability of those populations, and underlines the
importance Australia gives to MPAs.
Ecuador reported that whales have been protected in
Ecuador since 1990, but three coastal MPAs have recently
been created to protect cetacean habitats, especially
humpback whales and bottlenose dolphins. A network on
stranding is being implemented. In 2007 Ecuador set up a
commission for supervision of whale and dolphin watching
to ensure responsible activities and including training for
ships captains and sailors.
Argentina highlighted a workshop for development
of a national action plan to reduce the bycatch of marine
mammals hosted by Secretara de Ambiente y Desarrollo
Sustentable, and Subsecretara de Pesca y Acuicultura from
27-29 September 2011 attended by national and provincial
governmental agencies, scientists, academics and nongovernmental organisations. A draft version of the plan is
expected to be finished and approved during this year.
During 2011 the Southern Right Whale Health
Monitoring Program (SRWHMP) recorded and collected
samples for further analysis from a total of 61 stranded
whales at Pennsula Valds, including three juveniles and 58
calves.
An action plan has been developed to minimise the
problems of kelp gull attacks on southern right whales from
the southwest Atlantic population in the area of Pennsula
Valds. This issue was identified as a priority in the IWC
CMP of southern right whales. The main components of the
plan are:
strategic communication about the interaction between
both species;
the development of a pilot study to remove kelp gulls
with technical assistance from the Centro Nacional
Patagnico;
the eradication of open dumps;
the continued monitoring of population trends of both
species; and
monitoring the rate of gull-whale interactions.
In 2011 Costa Rica set up its first Marine Management
Area which is part of the World Wildlife Union (no. 4
category) and close to the Cocos Island Park. A management
plan is being developed in which longline fishing would be
allowed but industrial tuna fishing prohibited. They plan
to document the abundance and patterns of behaviour of
cetacean species and impacts from human activities. Costa
Rica also gave notice of the 4th Meso American Conference
on MPAs being planned for Costa Rica in August 2013,
whose purpose is to strengthen MPAs, with an emphasis on
whales. IWC support will be requested nearer the time.
New Zealand reported on the continuation of its
humpback whale research throughout the South Pacific
and its extensive research on southern right whales. New
Zealand supports the IWC Southern Ocean Research
Partnership (SORP) and participated in the two pygmy blue
whale research projects this season.
New Zealand is proposing to extend the Marine
Mammal Sanctuary protected area off North Island in order
to protect the endemic Mauis dolphin. This step resulted
from a Threats Management Workshop held in early June
2012 following the catch of a Mauis dolphin in a gillnet in
January and the critical state of the population.
102
New Zealand was pleased to report that the survival of

Hectors dolphins at Banks Peninsula has improved by 5.4%
since the creation of a Marine Mammal Sanctuary in the area
in 1988. The Sanctuary and local fishing regulations have
significantly slowed the rate of decline of this population.
These protection measuresare also of benefit to seabirds and
fish populations.
Argentina requested further details of New Zealands
work on Mauis dolphins because they have similar
problems with entanglements. New Zealand clarified that
the proposed extension also includes fisheries measures and
will ban setnets within the area. Argentina and New Zealand
agreed to continue discussions outside of the meeting.
The USA gave a PowerPoint presentation on
conservation efforts related to ship strike mitigation and
ocean noise, noting that details on a number of additional
conservation initiatives of the USA are summarised in its
Voluntary Conservation Report (IWC/64/CC5). The USA
described its successful 2009 efforts utilising ship traffic
and whale density data supporting a new Traffic Separation
Scheme (TSS) for ships transiting through the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The USA noted that it
conducted a similar analysis in 2011 to support a proposal
for two updated TSSs on the USA west coast, which will
be reviewed by the IMO during its meeting from 2-6 July
2012. The USA also announced the release of the free Right
Whale App for iPad or iPhone, designed to make mariners
better aware of the ship strike reduction initiatives on the
east coast, thereby increasing mariner compliance and right
whale protection.
The USA presented information on tools used to
evaluate the impacts of human-induced noise on cetaceans.
In particular, two mapping methods were used to depict: (1)
temporal, spatial and spectral characteristics of underwater
noise; and (2) regional time- and species-specific cetacean
density. The USA plans to use these mapping tools to
provide a more robust, comprehensive, and context-specific
way to inform management decisions, with the ultimate goal
of assisting ocean planning efforts.
In response to a question from Belgium, the USA noted
that the mapping work currently focused only on the US
EEZ but the next steps include work with other partners/
organisations and the USA welcomed further discussion of
this issue.
10. MARINE DEBRIS
At IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission endorsed a recommendation from the Conservation Committee to include
a standing item on marine debris on the Committees agenda.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee noted that marine
debris is a growing concern for marine wildlife in general,
but its interactions with cetaceans are poorly understood.
To begin investigating these interactions the Scientific
Committee reviewed several papers on marine debris.
In general four key questions were identified: (1) how to
distinguish cetaceans that have died in active fishing gear
versus those entangled in what is called ghost fishing
gear; (2) how to identify the worst culprit types of ghost
fishing gear causing entanglement; (3) how to investigate
the potential accumulation of debris in the deep sea feeding
areas of beaked and sperm whales; and (4) how to investigate
the impacts of microplastics on cetaceans, including baleen
whales.
To address these issues the Scientific Committee
recommended that a Workshop on Marine Debris and
Cetaceans be held next year (see IWC/64/Rep1, Annex K,
Appendix 3). The primary aim of this Workshop would be
to determine how to best investigate quantitatively the ways
in which marine debris is affecting cetaceans and how best

to monitor and mitigate for these effects. The Workshop
could also consider how best to develop a centralised
database to collate cases of debris interactions, including
the development of standardised criteria for data to allow
more certain identification of the types of debris and the
interactions involved.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee also referred to
the work being undertaken in the USA, Korea and Japan
and the Steering Group for the IWC-POWER cruises
who are investigating how those cruises can contribute to
international efforts to collect more information on marine
debris (see also IWC/64/Rep1, Annex G).
Several countries expressed appreciation for the work
being done by the Scientific Committee on marine debris and
fully supported the proposed Workshop. They recognised
that this issue is a significant and growing threat to marine
ecosystems and is still poorly understood. Belgium noted that
entanglement in marine debris, the health status of cetaceans
and ship strikes are all interrelated, and there are likely to
be both accumulative and synergistic effects of these threats.
Australia suggested that the workshop be held jointly
by the Scientific and Conservation Committees in order to
encompass both scientific and management aspects of the
problem of marine debris.
The UK and Australia drew attention to the recent Rio
Ocean declaration (in the outcomes document entitled The
Future We Want, para. 163) which calls on all nations to
take action on marine pollution. The IWC should cooperate
with other international organisations to address this threat.
Argentina referred to a study on the ingestion of plastic
debris (PD) in 28% of 106 Franciscana dolphins incidentally
captured in artisanal fisheries on its northern coast. PD
ingestion was more frequent in estuarine (34.6%) than
in marine (19.2%) environments, but the type of debris
was similar. Packaging debris was found in 64.3% of the
dolphins, with 35.7% ingesting fishery gear fragments and
25% from unknown sources.
The USA provided information on a new programme
aimed at combating the problem of derelict fishing gear called
Fishing for Energy and encouraged interested delegations
to join the initiative, indicating that more information would
be available next week at the IWC expo.
The Conservation Committee endorsed the proposal
for a joint Workshop by the Scientific and Conservation
Committees.
11. PROGRESS UNDER THE VOLUNTARY FUND
FOR SMALL CETACEAN CONSERVATION
RESEARCH
In 2011 the Conservation Committee received a strong
recommendation from the Scientific Committees subcommittee on small cetaceans for funding of nine highstandard research and conservation projects under the
Commissions Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean
Conservation and Research. All of the projects are aimed
at improving conservation outcomes for small cetacean
species and populations threatened or especially vulnerable
to human activities.
The Chair of the Scientific Committees sub-committee
on small cetaceans gave an update on the current status of
the Voluntary Fund. Contributions received during the past
year had enabled all nine projects to be funded and these
were outlined in a PowerPoint presentation3 and are listed
3
See: http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC64docs/SMFund_CC_rev2.ppt.
below. Particular emphasis was given to the conservation

and capacity building aspects of each project.
(1) Ecology, status, fisheries interactions and conservation
of coastal Indo-Pacific humpback and bottlenose
dolphins on the west coast of Madagascar. Work on
this project is on-going.
(2) Abundance and distribution of the Atlantic humpback
dolphin in Gabon and Congo. An extended summary
on progress of this project is given in SC/64/SM22.
(3) Estimating abundance of an isolated population of the
threatened franciscana: moving towards conservation
actions has been successfully completed and is
reported in SC/64/SM17.
(4) The Sarawak Dolphin Project is a long-term study
carried out in Malaysia. The IWC provided a one-year
grant to help with data collection.
(5) Genetic and demographic assessment of dolphins
taken in live-capture and traditional drive-hunt in the
Solomon Islands. A detailed preliminary report is
given in SC/64/SM23.
(6) Assessment of alternative fishing gear for replacing
gillnets that cause bycatch of vaquita in the Upper Gulf
of California, Mexico.
(7) Investigation of population identity of Indo-Pacific
humpback dolphins in the northern Bay of Bengal,
Bangladesh and implications for population-level
conservation and taxonomy of the species. This is a
2-year project.
(8) Identifying conservation solutions for the Yangtze
(China) finless porpoise through community research.
(9) Photo-identification monitoring of the eastern Taiwan
Strait population of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins.
This project has just started.
As soon as sufficient additional funding for 2-3 projects
is secured a new call for proposals will be launched, possibly
by the end of 2012.
The UK commended the work being conducted under
the Small Cetaceans fund, noting that the IWC must not
overlook the conservation of small cetaceans, and applauded
the work being done by Mexico to protect the vaquita. In
addition it noted its concern over the continued hunting of
Dalls porpoise, noted the Scientific Committees concern
over the hunting of Bairds beaked whales and encouraged
the provision of data to assist the efforts of the Scientific
Committee in its work.
Both the Netherlands and Italy intend to make a formal
announcement next week of a financial contribution to the
Small Cetaceans Fund.
The Conservation Committee congratulates the
Scientific Committee on its work and looks forward to
103
receiving reports on further progress and the final outcomes.

The importance of voluntary contributions to continue this
work was highlighted and thanks were expressed to all of
the Contracting Governments and observer organisations
whose funding has allowed the work to progress. Several
countries noted the importance of continued contributions
to the Small Cetacean Fund in order to continue the very
practical, strategic and direct support of small cetacean
conservation initiatives, especially as some of the most
threatened populations belong to this group.
12. OTHER MATTERS
The UK drew attention to the report of the Intersessional
Correspondence Group on Strengthening IWC Financing
due to be discussed by the Finance and Administration
Committee later in the week (IWC/64/F&A4). Financing
for projects and research is required for the important work
being done across the IWC on issues such as ship strikes,
entanglement, CMPs and marine debris to contribute to the
shared IWC goal of healthy whale populations.
Australia raised the issue of cooperation with other
organisations noting the Scientific Committee process
of agreeing formal IWC observers to attend meetings of
other international organisations. Australia requested that
the Scientific Committee make reports to this Committee
where the work of such organisations is of relevance to
it. In addition it suggested that other organisations whose
work is relevant to the Committee should be identified
and a complementary initiative be instituted through the
Conservation Committee. Australia volunteered to do some
of this work intersessionally.
Belgium will host a CCAMLR-related workshop in
September 2012, as well as the Annual Meeting of ATCM/
CEP in May 2013. Both meetings will be held in Brussels.
At IWC/63 the Commission recognised the Secretariats
on-going work on the Commissions new website. The
Secretary introduced the pre-launch version of the new site,
the URL of which is http://demo.iwcoffice.org/. He noted
that text from the old website had been transferred to the new
site and updated where possible. He stressed that the prelaunch version is provided in order for delegates to suggest
modifications and/or additions to the new website to ensure
that it accurately reflects all the work being undertaken
through the auspices of the IWC including the many new
activities instigated by the Conservation Committee.
James Gray was elected as Vice-Chair.
13. ADOPTION OF REPORT
The report was adopted by post on 1 July 2012.
104
Appendix 1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Argentina
Victor Marzari
Miguel Iguez
Australia
Pam Eiser
Nick Gales
Stephanie Ierino
Chris Schweitzer
Victoria Wadley
Alexia Wellbelove
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Belgium
Frederic Chemay
Fbian Ritter
Chile
Barbara Galletti
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Ricardo Meneses
Denmark
le Samsing
Amalie Jessen
Nette Levermann
Gitte Hundahl
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez
Ecuador
Gustavo Iturralde
Jorge Samaniego
France
Martine Bigan
Vincent Ridoux
Italy
Plinio Conte
Caterina Fortuna
Francesca Granata
Germany
Karl-Hermann Kock
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
Korea, Republic of
Du Hae An
Yong-Rock An
Switzerland
Bruno Mainini
Mexico
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho (Chair)
Yolanda Alaniz
Netherlands
Peter Bos
New Zealand
Gerard van Bohemen
Louise Chilvers
Karena Lyons
Liz Slooten
Norway
Kathrine Ryeng
Truls Soly
Einar Tallaksen
Lars Walle
Hild Ynnesdal
Panama
Jose Julio Casas
Hector Guzman
Juan Mate
Anna Nuez
Lissette Trejor
Yira Jaramillo
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko
Alexey Ottoy
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Spain
Santiago Lens
UK
Nigel Gooding
Sarah Baulch
Nicola Clarke
James Gray
Jenny Lonsdale
Beatriz Roel
Anju Sharda
Mark Simmonds
Jolyon Thomson
USA
Melissa Andersen
Charlotte Brower
Robert Brownell
Carole Carlson
Doug DeMaster
Roger Eckert
Brian Gruber
Taryn Kiekow
Michael Lawrence
Ira New Breast
Lisa Phelps
Alison Reed
Rollie Schmitten
Michael Tillman
DJ Schubert
Ryan Wulff
Chair
Debra Palka
Vice-Chair
Toshihide Kitakado
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Cherry Allison
Greg Donovan
David Mattila
105
Appendix 2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
IWC/64/CC
Agenda Item
1
Draft Agenda
2
List of documents
3
Country Report on Ship Strikes submitted by the Government of Australia
4.2
4
Australia: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report
9.1
5
United States: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report
9.1
6
Report of the Standing Working Group on Whalewatching (submitted by the USA)
6.2
7rev1 A Draft Conservation Management Plan for Southwest Atlantic Southern Right Whales (submitted
8
by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay)
8
United Kingdom: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report, 2012
9.1
9
Conservation Management Plan for Eastern South Pacific Southern Right Whale Population
8
(Eubalaena australis) (submitted by Chile)
10
Contamination Problems of the Gray Whales (submitted by the Russian Federation)
3
11
Cetacean Conservation Measures in the Pacific Islands Region with a focus on Oceania Humpback
8
Whales (submitted by Australia)
12rev Report of the Standing Working Group on Conservation Management Plans (submitted by Australia)
8
13
Overview of the work of the technical adviser assigned to the Secretariat in relation to ship strike
4.2
mitigation: October-May, 2012 (submitted by the Secretariat)
14
France: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report
9.1
15
Argentina: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report
9.1
16
Overarching Principles and Best Practice Guidelines for Marine Mammal Watching in the Wider
6.2
Caribbean Region (WCR) (submitted by the USA)
17
Report of the Regional Workshop on Marine Mammal Watching in the Wider Caribbean Region
6.2
(submitted by USA)
18
International Workshop on Maritime Transport and Biodiversity Conservation (submitted by Spain)
4
19
New Zealand: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report, 2012
9.1
20
Mexico: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report, 2012
9.1
21
Chile: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report, 2012
9.1
22
Brazil: Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report, 2012
9.1
23rev Proposal of the Republic of Panama for the establishment of Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) and
4
Prevention of Vessel Collision with Whales (submitted by Panama)
24
Action Plan 2011-2016 (submitted by the USA)
6
IWC/64/WKM&AWI
12
Proposal to address indirect human impacts on marine mammals of the wider Caribbean region
(submitted by the Dominican Republic, France, Mexico, Panama and the USA)
IWC/64/Rep
1
SC/64/O
1
Summary Report of the Second International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas
(ICMMPA 2), Martinique, 7-11 November 2011
106
Appendix 3
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introductory items
1.2 Appointment of Rapporteurs
Adoption of Agenda
Investigation of inedible stinky gray whales
3.1 Report on progress
Ship strikes
4.2 Report from the Ship Strikes Working Group
4.4 Appointment of Chair of the Ship Strikes
Working Group
Southern right whale population of Chile-Peru
5.1 Report of the Scientific Committees Southern
Right Whale Assessment Workshop
5.2 Update on progress
5.3 Committee discussions and action arising
Whalewatching
6.1
6.2
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Report from the Scientific Committee

Report from the Conservation Committees
Standing Working Group on Whalewatching
Whale sanctuaries
Conservation management plans
Small Working Group
National reports on cetacean conservation
9.1 Introduction of national reports
9.2 Committee discussion and recommendations
Marine debris
Progress under the Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean
Conservation Research
Other
Adoption of Report
107
Annex G
Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and
Associated Welfare Issues
Monday 25 June 2012, Panam City, Republic of Panama
The list of participants is given as Appendix 1.
Given the other responsibilities of last years Chair, Herman
Oosthuizen (South Africa), Michael Stachowitsch (Austria)
kindly took on the role as Chair.
1.2 Appointment of rapporteur
Greg Donovan (Secretariat) was appointed rapporteur.
The available documents are given in Appendix 3.
The adopted agenda is given as Appendix 2.
3. DATA PROVIDED ON WHALES KILLED
This item allows Contracting Governments to provide the
information specified in Resolutions 1999-1 and 20012. Resolution 1999-1 encouraged reporting of data on
whales killed including the number killed by each method,
the number killed instantaneously, times to death (TTD),
number of whales targeted and missed, number of whales
struck and lost, calibre of rifle where used, number of bullets
used and methods to determine unconsciousness and/or time
to death. Resolution 2001-2 encouraged Governments to
submit information on variance data on times to death (to
the extent possible) and comparative data from the killing of
other large mammals.
3.1 New Zealand
IWC/64/WKM&AWI4 summarises work undertaken in New
Zealand with respect to the euthanasia of stranded animals
that could not be rescued; these were 64 long-finned pilot
whales, 14 pygmy sperm whales, 2 strap-toothed whales and
1 humpback whale. The methods used were various calibre
rifles. In most cases the estimated TTD was instant but
the estimated TTD for the humpback whale was 12 hours.
New Zealand noted that determining how best to euthanise
whales was an important issue for many governments and
encouraged others to report their experiences and data (see
the discussion under Items 5 and 6).
3.2 USA
IWC/64/WKM&AWI10 summarises the information presented by the USA. In 2011, 38 bowhead whales were
landed of which 20 were taken using black powder, 7 were
taken using the new penthrite projectile and 12 were taken
using black powder and the penthrite projectile. This is an
increase from last year (2010), where 2 out of 45 whales
were taken using penthrite. A total of 13 whales were struck

and lost in 2011. Therefore, for 2011, the rate of efficiency
of the hunt was 75% (the average over the last 10 years is
75%). This represents a considerable improvement over
the 63% efficiency reported for 2010. The USA explained
that weather and ice conditions play a significant role in
determining the efficiency of the spring aboriginal bowhead
whale hunts. Finally, the USA was pleased to report that
use of the penthrite projectile is increasing and early 2012
reports show continued success in reducing time to death.
This is discussed further under Item 4.
3.3 Denmark/Greenland
IWC/64/WKM&AWI7 summarises the information presented by Denmark/Greenland. There are two primary
hunting types the harpoon cannon hunting using penthrite
grenades (with large calibre rifles as the secondary method
for minke whales and penthrite grenades as secondary
method for fin, bowhead and humpback whales) and the
rifle hunt that uses large calibre rifles for minke whales. The
median TTD for common minke whales for the former was 1
minute while the median TTD for the latter was 21 minutes.
The median TTD for humpback whales was 3 minutes.
The Working Group thanked Denmark/Greenland for the
presentation of this information.
3.4 Russian Federation
IWC/64/WKM&AWI6 summarises the information presented by the Russian Federation. The hunt uses a harpoon
with a float and then either a darting gun and/or a rifle. The
mean TTD was 37 minutes.
The Working Group thanked the Russian Federation for
the presentation of this information.
3.5 Norway
IWC/64/WKM&AWI9 summarises the information presented by Norway.
In 2011, 533 whales were taken by 20 vessels. Five
whales (0.9%) were reported lost and sank after they were
dead. No whales were reported to have escaped wounded.
At-sea monitoring was carried out by the Electronic Trip
Recorder System (Blue Box). In addition, periodic checks
of the hunting activities were carried out on eight boats by
inspectors from the Directorate of Fisheries.
Harpoon guns of calibres 50mm and 60mm equipped
with the Norwegian penthrite harpoon grenade developed
in 1997-99. Rifles with full metal jacket, round nosed
bullets with a minimum calibre of 9.3mm, are used as
back-up weapons. Gunners must pass obligatory shooting
tests, both with rifle and harpoon gun. At-sea monitoring
is carried out on all boats by the Electronic Trip Recorder
(Blue Box) developed in 2001-05 (IWC/57/RMS8). In
108
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex G
addition, inspectors from the Norwegian Directorate of

Fisheries conduct periodic and random checks of the hunt.
In some years, observers under the NAMMCO International
Observation Scheme are present on board during the hunting
season.
The Working Group thanked Norway for the presentation
of this information.
3.6 General discussion
The Working Group welcomed the continued provision
of information and believed that this was a valuable
component of IWC efforts to review and where possible
assist with improvements in whale killing methods. It was
noted that there was no information available for the hunt
by St. Vincent and The Grenadines and no representative
present at the Working Group meeting. It hoped that the
relevant information could be provided by St. Vincent and
The Grenadines either to the ASW Sub-Committee or to the
Plenary.
Noting the extensive work undertaken by Norway in the
period up to 2003 (see Item 4), Australia requested Norway
to provide additional information on recent operations.
Norway responded that for the reasons it has explained
before about misuse of data, it believed that NAMMCO
was a more suitable venue for it to report on whale killing
methods in detail. This view was also expressed by Iceland
and Japan.
4. INFORMATION ON IMPROVING THE
HUMANENESS OF WHALING OPERATIONS
This item allows Contracting Governments to provide
information specified in Resolution 1997-1 and supported by
Resolution 2001-2. Resolution 1997-1 concerns steps being
taken to improve the humaneness of aboriginal whaling
operations. Resolution 2001-2 encourages all Contracting
Governments to provide appropriate technical assistance
to reduce time to unconsciousness and death in all whaling
operations.
4.1 USA
Mr George Noongwook, Chairman of the Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission (AEWC), said that the eleven
whaling villages represented by the AEWC in 2011 struck
51 bowhead whales and landed 38, for an efficiency rate
of 75%. He reviewed the conditions in the spring and fall
hunts, noting that the ice conditions in the 2011 spring hunt
were very poor.
Mr Noongwook then reviewed the weapons improvement
program undertaken by the AEWC, and explained that
the use of the new penthrite projectiles is continuing to
expand, with only three of the eleven villages still needing
to be trained in their use. The hunters are pleased with the
new grenade and are especially grateful for Dr Egil ens
collaboration and work on development and training with the
new weapons. He also stated that in the spring hunt in 2012,
the use of penthrite increased. In closing, Mr Noongwook
noted that the penthrite projectiles are very expensive to
buy and ship, and thanked the North Slope Borough and the
US Government for their continued financial support of the
weapons improvement programme.
Mr Eugene Brower, chairman of the AEWC Weapons
Improvement Committee, then narrated a brief video that
showed the successful use of a penthrite projectile to quickly
kill a bowhead whale during the spring hunt.
The Working Group thanked the USA for this information

and the presentation. Norway, Australia, UK and Mexico in
particular commended the USA and the AEWC for the great
progress made. Norway stressed the importance of human
safety and of respecting local traditions and culture when
assisting with the development of new weapons to improve
the TTD for subsistence whaling. Local knowledge plays an
extremely important role in both weapon improvements and
training. He welcomed the news that two new villages were
now using penthrite weapons, noting that full scale uptake of
the penthrite weapon will bring even more improvements to
TTD for the hunts and reduce struck-and-lost rates.
4.2 Norway
IWC/64/WKM&AWI9 summarises the information presented by Norway. Norway summarised its long history of
working to improve the humaneness of whale killing methods
which has been recognised by several IWC workshops and
has been contained in many documents and reports to the
IWC and in scientific publications. For the techniques now
being used, at least 80% of animals are rendered instantly
and irreversibly unconscious or dead. The recorded average
TTD was about 2 minutes using the criteria adopted by the
IWC which will include periods when animals have been
unconscious or already dead. Very few animals (<0.5%)
needed a second harpoon shot. In comparison, when cold
harpoons were used (1981-83) the percentage of animals
recorded dead quickly (instant or within 1 minute) was 17%.
The average time to death (TTD) was more than 11 minutes
with 17 per cent needing re-shooting.
Norway has also played a major role in assisting other
countries with training and improved technology. In accord
with the IWC Action Plan, Dr Egil en of Norway has
worked co-operatively with hunters, scientists, authorities,
and whale hunters organisations in Norway, Canada
(Nunavut and Nunavik), Greenland, Iceland, Japan, the
Russian Federation (Chukotka) and the USA (Alaska).
Norwegian scientists have also participated in and chaired
expert group meetings in NAMMCO on whale killing data
assessment and lectured in local workshops and training
sessions for hunters.
5. WELFARE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ENTANGLEMENT OF LARGE WHALES
5.1 Presentation of the report of the Second IWC
Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the
Entanglement of Large Whales
At IWC/63 in 2011 the WKM&AWI Working Group
endorsed a series of recommendations presented in
IWC/63/WKM&AWI18. Amongst other things, these recommendations included a proposal to convene a second
Workshop on Welfare Issues and Large Whale Entanglement
Response to be held in Provincetown, USA in October 2011.
The Chair of the Workshop, Arne Bjrge, presented
its report (IWC/64/WKM&AWI Rep1). He recalled the
background to the Workshop, noting the three main priorities:
(1) advance the progress made at the 2010 Workshop;
(2) develop Principles and Guidelines for recommended
practices for entanglement response; and
(3) develop a capacity building and training curriculum.
He noted the thoroughness of the report and only a brief
Chairs summary is presented here.
The Workshop first reviewed new information that had
arisen since the 2010 Workshop. This included information
on new national disentanglement networks in New Zealand,

British Columbia in Canada and in Argentina.
The Workshop also reviewed the findings of a US
workshop held in 2011 to develop recommendations for
stranded whale euthanasia methods. Three recommendations
from that US workshop were considered and endorsed:
(1) further analyses of scavenger and environmental
issues of euthanasia drugs should be undertaken (i.e.
their effects on animals that may scavenge on the
carcass before ultimate disposal and any effects on the
environment);
(2) cranial implosion techniques should be considered for
adoption in regions where whales strand alive; and
(3) methods for at-sea euthanasia should continue to be
investigated.
The Workshop noted that the explosive harpoon is a
well-established tool for whale killing, but this tool is not
available in most areas. Therefore no appropriate tool for
at-sea euthanasia is available in most areas. The Workshop
noted that in certain cases, severely moribund animals can
be towed to shore and euthanised.
The Workshop then considered the value of improved
documentation of entanglement response events. Improved
documentation can assist in: increasing the safety and
success of future efforts; understanding the scale and nature
of specific entanglement; and facilitating the development of
mitigation and prevention measures. The Workshop made a
number of suggestions and recommendations in this regard.
An important and major outcome of the Workshop was
the development of a set of Principles and Guidelines for
Entanglement Response (Annex E of IWC/64/WKM&AWI
Rep 1). The main goals of the entanglement response can be
summarised in five points:
(1) first comes human safety;
(2) second animal welfare;
(3) the entanglement response can contribute to the
conservation of large whale populations as well as
animal welfare issues;
(4) data collection to assist with identifying key fisheries
and whale populations to better describe the problem
and assist with mitigation and prevention should be an
integrated part of the entanglement response; and
(5) awareness at all levels to improve reporting and
appropriate measures to address the mentioned issues.
The Workshop strongly commended these Principles and
Guidelines to the Commission.
The Workshop was concerned at the danger to human
life and the whales themselves from well-meaning but
misguided attempts by non-experts to disentangle whales.
It is therefore essential to consider an approach to capacity
building and training. The Workshop agreed an outline of the
capacity building and training programme. The main focus
of the programme is human safety and the achievement of
the goals of the Principles and Guidelines.
The Workshop emphasised that the ultimate solution
to large whale entanglement is prevention. However, as
this was not a major topic for the Workshop, it was only
briefly reviewed. However, the Workshop did identify some
research priorities and recommended the development
of a full proposal for a future international workshop on
prevention of large whale entanglements.
The final component of the Workshop was to examine
ways to improve entanglement response efforts worldwide
and to examine ways in which the IWC might assist in this.
The Workshop stressed the great benefits to entanglement
109
response effort of continued international collaboration

and the establishment of a global network of recognised
entanglement response operations. Given the global nature
of IWC and its work on many fields related to conservation
and management, there is a great potential value in these
international efforts being undertaken under the auspices
of the IWC. The Workshop therefore requested that the
Commission endorses the global network of entanglement
response operations, the Guidelines and Principles for
Disentanglement Response and the Recommended
Approach to Capacity Building and Training and consider
the following approach:
(1) establish a dynamic entanglement response section on
the IWC website;
(2) consider establishing an international entanglement
database;
(3) facilitate data exchange;
(4) promote the establishment of national Entanglement
Response Networks;
(5) provide advice to Member Governments;
(6) develop a proposal for an international workshop on
entanglement prevention; and
(7) continue to promote an IWC-managed fund for the
entanglement response.
5.2 Working group discussions and action arising
The Working Group welcomed this extensive, thorough
and clear report. It expressed its great appreciation to the
Workshop organisers and participants. It strongly endorses
the report and its conclusions and recommendations. It
commends them to the Commission.
A number of specific comments were also raised. Norway
supported the future work, noting that it had raised the issue
of animal welfare in relation to entanglements before. It
emphasised that in some cases it was not possible to release
animals and in those cases it was important to kill the animal
as quickly and painlessly as possible. It did not believe
that public opinion or perceptions should be a governing
factor as this may prolong the suffering of animals. Work
to find suitable euthanasia techniques must continue and
the experience of improved whaling weapons could prove
a good basis for killing entangled animals that could not be
rescued.
5.3 Report of Technical Experts secondment to the
Secretariat
IWC/64/F&A6 provides an overview of David Mattilas
secondment to the Secretariat. IWC/64/WKM&AWI11
describes the first use of the IWC developed strategy and
curriculum for entanglement response capacity building,
as described (IWC/64/WKM&AWI Rep1, summarised
above). During March 2012, the Secretariat worked closely
with the Commissioners from Argentina and Brazil in order
to select appropriate candidates, work with relevant local
authorities and conduct a series of seminars, classroom and
practical trainings on all aspects of the topic. As a result,
43 key members of Brazils national stranding network,
including veterinarians and research biologists, were
trained and assessed. In Argentina, an overview seminar
was conducted for approximately thirty veterinarians
and scientists in Buenos Aires. In the Chubut Province,
World Heritage Site for southern right whale breeding
grounds, over sixty veterinarians, scientists, governmental
authorities, and professional ocean users were trained in
the classroom, while ten individuals with some previous
110
experience were given practical training on the water. Both

formal and informal discussions held during the training
and seminars stimulated the initiation of entanglement
research and mitigation in the region. Upon completion,
the Secretariat and Commissioners reviewed candidates for
potential advanced apprenticeships.
The Working Group thanked Mattila for his valuable
work, as well as the Governments of the USA, Argentina
and Brazil. It stressed the importance of the extension of
this work to other areas (see also Item 5.4 below) where
entanglements of large whales occur.
Argentina thanked the Secretariat and the USA for the
training and encouraged others to take advantage of the
programme. As a result of the workshops, the director of the
Direccin de Fauna y Flora Silvestre (Division of Wild Flora
and Fauna), for the Ministerio de la Produccin (Ministry
of Agriculture), for Chubut Province, and the regional
stranding director, authored a paper on entanglements of
southern right whales in the region over the past decade
(SC/64/BC1). It described the entanglements and outcomes of 12 known cases of which six were released.
More than half of the cases were in local boat moorings,
a finding which stimulated local proposals for mitigation,
and have encouraged Argentina (and Brazil) to more
broadly work on prevention. Thanks were also expressed to
the whalewatching companies in Chubut, which provided
vessel support for the training, and whose captains make up
much of the response team.
The USA also thanked Mattila and the Governments
of Argentina and Brazil. It stressed the value of this IWC
structured approach, as it ensured that trainers work with the
proper national and regional authorities, and that working
together, the proper candidate trainees are selected (e.g.
from authorised stranding networks) in accordance with
the recommendations from the Provincetown Workshop.
An essential component of the approach developed by the
Workshop was the development of apprenticeships to give
trainees practical experience in real entanglement responses.
In this context, the USA announced the donation of US$12,000
in order to support apprentices from Argentina and Brazil to
visit the USA for advanced training. The Working Group
expresses great appreciation to the USA for facilitating the
essential training component of these apprenticeships.
5.4 Proposal to address human impacts on cetaceans in
the wider Caribbean
The Working Group received IWC/64/WKM&AWI12, a
proposal sponsored by the Dominican Republic, France,
Mexico, Panama and the USA to help address indirect
human impacts on marine mammals of the wider Caribbean
region including entanglements and ship strikes.
In accordance with the recommendations of the IWC
and CEPs Specially Protected Areas and Wildlifes (SPAW)
Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals in
the Wider Caribbean Region (Marine Mammal Action Plan,
MMAP), the document proposes that the IWC and CEP
Secretariats partner with interested member governments in
order to convene workshops on these topics for the wider
Caribbean countries as follows:
(1) an Interdisciplinary Ship Strike Workshop (2013); and
(2) two Large Whale Entanglement Training Workshops
(2012/13).
IWC expertise can assist the countries of the wider
Caribbean region through this series of capacity building
and mitigation workshops.
With regard to the ship strike issue in the region, there

are two major components to address: (i) gathering data on
the risk associated with particular species and areas; and (ii)
identifying potential mitigation actions.
Currently identified partners include the IWC, UNEPCEP, SPAW Regional Activity Center and the Parties of the
Sister Sanctuary Agreement (Dominican Republic, France,
the Netherlands, and the USA), but it is hoped to expand this
to include other interested parties (e.g. IMO, stakeholders
and other countries in the region). It is proposed that the
terms of reference, agenda, venue and invited participants
for this Workshop be determined by an IWC-led steering
committee in consultation with UNEP-CEP and Sister
Sanctuary Parties. The Ship Strike Workshop could be held
in 2013.
With regard to large whale entanglement, two practical
workshops are proposed. These capacity building workshops
will follow the approach recommended by the Provincetown
Workshop (see above). The practical workshops will also
include an extra day of training in the determination of
human-caused mortalities, conducted by an internationally
recognised expert on the topic. It is anticipated that these
workshops will each take place in different venues and
languages. One will be an English-French Workshop in the
French West Indies (e.g. Martinique, Guadeloupe), and the
other will be an English-Spanish Workshop, probably in
Mexico.
It was proposed that the IWC Secretariat works with
the UNEP-CEP Secretariat and appropriate member
governments, including the Parties of the Sister Sanctuary
Agreement and other interested parties on developing a list
of invited participants, other logistics and necessary support.
The representative of UNEP-SPAW-RAC spoke in
strong support of this proposal, stressing that it addresses
many of the priorities in their marine mammal action plan.
The Working Group welcomed and supported this
collaborative initiative and commends it to the Commission.
6. WHALE WELFARE
6.1 Intersessional work by the UK on welfare and
ethics
At IWC/63 in 2011, the Commission considered the outputs
of a workshop convened by the UK on issues relating to
welfare and ethics in the context of the IWC. No consensus
was reached at that meeting on a UK proposal to establish an
adhoc IWC group to develop further recommendations. The
UK therefore stated its intention to take the work forwards
intersessionally in collaboration with those countries that
had expressed support.
6.1.1 Report on intersessional work by the UK
The UK introduced the report of its workshop, IWC/64/
WKM&AWI3. Representatives from ten countries had
attended a UK-organised workshop held in London in March
2012. Presentations had been received on the history of
animal welfare issues in the IWC and developments in other
international fora in dealing with animal welfare issues.
The group acknowledged that animal welfare is an issue
which includes important ethical, economic and political
dimensions and that animal welfare is relevant to many
issues in addition to direct takes, including whalewatching,
ship strikes and bycatch. It discussed the importance of
Governments continuing to share information with the IWC,
as these data are required to advance scientific understanding
for conservation and management.
It was noted that in recent years, some of the most

important steps forward on welfare issues have been taken
by aboriginal subsistence whaling countries. While agreeing
general principles and actions are important, it was important
to recognise that not all recommendations are practicable in
subsistence whaling.
The group recognised that many IWC working groups
are already giving significant consideration to the promotion
of good animal welfare in the course of existing and
ongoing projects. It was suggested that it may be practical
for animal welfare to be taken into consideration and, where
appropriate, addressed by all relevant IWC working groups
and committees rather than for all welfare issues to be
exclusively referred to the Working Group on Whale Killing
Methods and Associated Welfare Issues.
There was also some discussion on the development
of general guiding principles on animal welfare. It was
suggested that co-operation with other intergovernmental
bodies such as the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE) could be a valuable exercise to ensure clarity and
consistency of approach to the promotion of good animal
welfare across the spectrum of the IWCs work.
It was recognised that the IWC has a significant history
of working on welfare issues as well as a current Action
Plan that is worth reviewing and building upon. It was noted
that the IWC Scientific Committee has already recognised
the need for external expertise when dealing with animal
welfare issues, and previous expert workshops on whale
killing methods and animal welfare-related issues have
successfully allowed for that outside expertise to play a role
in advancing these topics within the Commission.
The workshop recommendations (discussed further
under Item 6.1.2 below) were developed to try find ways
forward on such issues for amongst all IWC members.
After presenting the document, the UK commented that
in its view the IWC has achieved some significant progress
on welfare issues. However, in recent years, multilateral
cooperation on such issues within the IWC has slowed. It
noted that all Governments are in agreement that welfare
is an important issue; the question is how best the issue
can be addressed in a constructive manner. The UK was
willing to assist in this regard, noting that this issue was not
restricted to whaling operations but posed challenges to all
Governments.
The UK had recognised the concerns raised last year about
the way in which certain data provided to the Commission
had been interpreted and used. It is for this reason that it
invites all countries to be involved intersessionally to
develop this work to ensure that it proceeds in a manner
that is acceptable to all. It also does not wish to duplicate
work which is why it is important to identify areas to best
focus IWC effort. The UK believes that this needs to be a
duel process, making progress on technical areas needing
resolution, underneath an overarching framework to ensure
the IWC is keeping pace with developments in animal
welfare science globally. As the work on entanglements has
shown, wider debates regarding whales and whaling can be
put in abeyance in order for progress to be made.
It believes that all countries will benefit by taking the
opportunity to focus and identify regional or specific
111
problems that need resolving with the assistance of the

international community. The IWC could provide a forum to
share experience and hopefully, progress towards practical
answers to some of problems that all face.
6.1.2 Working Group discussions and action arising
including future work plan
There was considerable discussion of this document and
on how the IWC might take some of these issues forward.
Several countries thanked the UK for its presentation and
the collaborative approach suggested. They noted that the
broader issues outside whaling were important from an
animal welfare perspective and were relevant to problems
faced by many members of the Commission.
Discussion then focused on the proposed recommendations in IWC/64/WKM&AWI3 and in conclusion,
the Working Group requests to the Commission that the
Working Group forms an ad-hoc intersessional working
group to:
(1) review its Terms of Reference and existing Action
Plan to see if they need updating or revision and make
recommendations accordingly; and
(2) identify and agree upon important issues or themes to
progress the promotion of good animal welfare and
agree a timetable of regular future technical workshops
on these issues, that would report back to the relevant
working groups, recognising the success of previous
IWC workshops on specific issues incorporating invited
external experts.
In addition, it recommends the development of plans for
an expert Workshop on the euthanasia of large whales (both
stranded animals and those entangled whales for which
euthanasia appears to be the only option in accordance with
the decision tree developed at the Maui Workshop). As
noted by Norway, this Workshop could take advantage of
the extensive previous discussions at IWC expert workshops
relating to the criteria for determining unconsciousness and
death in whales.
Finally, it recommends that the Secretariat be asked to:
(a) develop a database of external contacts with expertise in
animal welfare science pertinent to work being undertaken
by the Commission; and (b) recommend to the Commission
opportunities for constructive co-operation with other
relevant animal welfare bodies.
7. NEW WEBSITE
At IWC/63 in 2011, the Secretariat was requested to provide
a beta version of the Commissions new website to IWC/64.
In fulfilment of this request, the Secretary introduced a
launch candidate version of the new site. Members of the
WKM&AWI Working Group were requested to review the
content of the new site as relevant to WKM&AWI affairs
and pass any requests for changes to the Chair of the
WKM&AWI before the end of the Plenary meeting. The
dummy website address is: http://demo.iwcoffice.org/.
8. Adoption of report
The report was adopted by email on 29 June 2012.
112
Appendix 1
Argentina
Victor Marzari
Miguel Iguez
Australia
Pam Eiser
Nick Gales
Stephanie Ienino
Victoria Wadley
Alexia Wellbelove
Japan
Shinji Hiruma
Kiyoshi Katsuyama
Toshihide Kitakado
Tomio Miyashita
Takaaki Sakamoto
Korea, Republic of
Du Hae An
Yong Rock An
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Michael Stachowitch (Chair)
Mexico
Yolanda Alaniz
Chile
Barbara Galletti
New Zealand
Louise Chilvers
Karena Lyons
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Ricardo Meneses
Denmark
le Samsing
Leif Fontaine
Gitte Hundahl
Amalie Jessen
Nette Levermann
Martin Mennecke
Ecuador
Gustavo Iturralde
Germany
Karl-Hermann Kock
Lutz Friedrichsen
Norway
le-Savid Stenseth
Arne Bjrge
Egil en
Kathrine Ryeng
Truls Soly
Lars Walle
Hild Ynnesdal
Panama
Hector Guzman
Gabriel Despaigne
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko
Olga Etylin
Alexey Ottoy
Spain
Santiago Lens
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
Switzerland
Bruno Mainini
UK
Nigel Gooding
Nicola Clarke
Jim Gray
Jenny Lonsdale
Beatriz Roel
Anju Sharda
Mark Simmonds
Jolyon Thompson
USA
Melissa Andersen
Greig Arnold
Charlotte Brower
Eugene Brower
Robert Brownell
Roger Eckert
Brian Gruber
Keith Johnson
Taryn Kiekow
Michael Lawrence
Ira New Breast
George Noongwook
Elizabeth Phelps
Ann Renker
Rollie Schmitten
DJ Schubert
Jonathan Scordino
Michael Tillman
Ryan Wulff
Iceland
sta Einarsdottr
Gisli Vkingsson
St. Lucia
Scientific committee
Chair
Debra Palka
Italy
Plinio Conte
M. Francesca Granata
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Greg Donovan
David Mattila
113
Appendix 2
agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introductory items
Adoption of Agenda
Data provided on whales killed
Information on improving the humaneness of whaling
operations
Welfare issues associated with the entanglement of
large whales
5.1 Presentation of the Report of the Second IWC
Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with
the Entanglement of Large Whales (document
IWC/64/WKM&AWI Rep1)
5.2 Working group discussions and action arising
Whale welfare
6.1 Intersessional work by the UK on welfare and
ethics
6.1.1 Report on intersessional work by the UK
6.1.2 Working group discussions and action
arising including future work plan
Adoption of the report
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Working Group is established to review information
and documentation available with a view to advising the
Commission on whale killing methods and associated
welfare issues (Chairmans Report of the 52nd Annual
Meeting held in 2000).
ADMISSION OF OBSERVERS
Rule of Procedure C.2
Observers accredited in accordance with Rule [of procedure]
C.1.(a) and (b) are admitted to all meetings of the Commission
and Technical Committee, and to any meetings of subsidiary
groups of the Commission and Technical Committee, except
the Commissioners-only meetings and the meetings of the
Finance and Administration Committee.
Appendix 3
list of documents
IWC/64/WKM&AWI
1
Draft Agenda
2
List of documents
3
Report of the UK Intersessional Workshop on Welfare and Recommendations for Future Work (submitted by the UK)
4
Summary of activities related to the Action Plan on Whale Killing Methods (based on Resolution 1999-1) (submitted
by New Zealand)
5
Ethical review of animal experiments - a global perspective by D.J. Fry (submitted by the UK)
6
by the Russian Federation)
7
by Greenland/Denmark)
8
US report on weapons, techniques, and observations in the Alaskan bowhead whale subsistence hunt (submitted by the
USA)
9
Norwegian minke whaling 2011 (submitted by Norway)
10
by the USA)
11
Summary of capacity building activities provided by the IWC to: Argentina and Brazil, March 2012
12
Proposal to address indirect human impacts on marine mammals of the wider Caribbean region (submitted by Dominican
Republic, France, Mexico, Panama and the USA)
Rep 1 Report of the Second IWC Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the Entanglement of Large Whales with a
Focus on Entanglement Response
114
sixty-Fourth annual meeting, annex H
Annex H
Report of the Infractions Sub-Committee
Monday 25 June 2012, Panam, Republic of Panama
A list of participants is given in Appendix 1.
Lars Walle (Norway) was elected Chair.
Cherry Allison (Secretariat) was appointed rapporteur.
The following documents were available to the SubCommittee.
IWC/64/Inf
1 Revised Draft Agenda
2 Annotated Draft Agenda
3 National Legislation details supplied to the IWC
4 Draft summary of infraction reports for 2011 received
by the Commission
The Chair noted that in the past some delegations, including
Norway and Japan, had referred to the terms of reference of
this Sub-Committee and had stated their belief that Item 7.1,
covering stockpiles of whale products and trade questions,
was outside the scope of the Convention. In a spirit of cooperation there was no request for the item to be deleted.
The draft Agenda was adopted unchanged (Appendix 2).
3. INFRACTIONS REPORTS FROM
CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS, 2011
3.1 Reports for 2011
The Sub-Committee reviewed IWC/64/Inf4, the draft
summary of infraction reports received by the Commission
for 2011, which is given as Appendix 3 to this report.
The USA provided information on the take of a bowhead
calf in September 2011. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC) reported that the whale appeared
to be an independent animal not associated with a large
whale; however, after the whale was struck, another whale
surfaced in the same area. After landing the whale, it was
determined to be a calf and the other whale which surfaced
after the strike was assumed to be accompanying the calf.
The AEWC Board of Commissioners met on 4 October
2011, to take testimony from the crew in question and
crews nearby. After receiving testimony, the AEWC Board
of Commissioners determined that the crew had taken all
possible precautions, but that the absence of a large whale
in the area where the calf was struck led to the mistake. No
penalty was assessed. The USA noted that this information
can also be found in table 2 of IWC/64/Inf2.
3.2 Follow-up on earlier reports

Information on the completion of previously unresolved
infractions from earlier seasons is given in Appendix
3, Table 3; these include one infraction by Denmark
(Greenland), two by Iceland and two by the Republic of
Korea. In addition Norway reported an infraction from 2009
(2009.19), which had not previously been reported to this
sub-committee, regarding 14 incidents of the intentional use
of a cold grenade harpoon.
In response to a question from Switzerland concerning
the fines imposed, Norway clarified that a fine of 12,000
Norwegian krone (~1,300) was imposed and the value of
the illegal catch confiscated was 163,000NK (~17,300).
Iceland agreed to provide information on the fine imposed
after the meeting1.
Iceland clarified that no calves were seen near the two
lactating fin whales, and that it was only when the whales
were being processed that milk was found in the mammary
glands and the whales determined to be lactating. These
whales may perhaps have had calves that had been recently
weaned.
The Russian Federation suggested that such cases should
not be considered an infraction and that the Commission
should agree that they should not be listed as such.
The Secretariat clarified that lactating whales are
traditionally reported to this Sub-Committee as the
Convention forbids the taking of whales with calves. However, it is recognised that in cases when a calf was not seen
with the whale, that it is impossible to recognise that a whale
was lactating before it was caught.
Denmark noted that the infraction it had reported
(see Table 2) regarding a whale that was 1m less than the
minimum allowed length of 15.2m was a similar situation in
that it is very difficult to access the exact length of a whale
before it is caught.
Sweden recognised the necessity to report a bowhead
calf as an infraction, as in Table 2. However, it believed that
this was an unnecessary rule originating from the time the
Convention was signed. Improved knowledge of population
dynamics reveals that taking a calf has a much lower
population impact than taking a mature female. Norway
concurred with this view and made a personal statement
noting that the management of whaling is different from
other harvest regimes which try to avoid productive animals.
In the IWC whale calves may not be taken whereas a female
that could produce a calf next year is allowed to be caught.
4. SURVEILLANCE OF WHALING OPERATIONS
The Infractions Reports submitted by the USA, the Russian
Federation and St. Vincent and The Grenadines stated that
100% of their catches are under direct national inspection.
After the meeting Iceland reported that a fine of 362,832 Icelandic krona
(~1,850) per fin whale was imposed for the two whales.
115

Table 1
National Legislation details supplied to the IWC.1,2
Country
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chile
China, Peoples Republic of
Colombia
Congo, Republic of
Costa Rica
Cote DIvoire
Croatia, Republic of
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark (including Greenland)
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Germany
Ghana, Republic of
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea, Republic of
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Date of most recent

material submitted
None
2003
2000
1998
2002
None
None
2008
None
None
None
1983
1983
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2010
None
None
2000
None
2008
1983
1994
None
None
1982
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1985
1981
2000
None
None
2008
None
Country
Kiribati
Korea, Republic of
Laos
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands, Republic of
Mauritania
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Nauru
Netherlands, The
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Oman
Palau, Republic of
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Senegal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Togo
Tuvalu
UK
Uruguay
USA
Date of most recent

material submitted
None
2011
None
None
None
None
None
None
2006
None
None
None
None
2002
1992
None
2000
1981
None
None
1984
None
2004
None
1998
None
None
1984
2003
None
None
None
None
1998
2008
None
2004
1986
None
None
None
1996
2002
2004
Notes: 1Up to the end of March 2012. Dates in the table refer to the date of the material not the date of submission. 2Member
states of the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK) are subject also to relevant regulations established by the Commission of the European
Union. The date of the most recent EU legislation supplied to the International Whaling Commission is 2005.
Catches by Denmark (Greenland) are subject to a random

check (1%) and 1% is under inspection by a NAMMCO
programme. For the Icelandic catch in 2011, 5.2% of the
hunt was subject to a random domestic check and 3.5%
under inspection through a NAMMCO programme.
Denmark: Information on date, species, length, sex and

the length and sex of any foetus if present is collected for
between 86-100% of the catch, depending on the item. The
position of each whale killed is collected for 63% of the
catch and the name of the area where whales are hunted is
reported for the remainder. Information on killing methods
and struck and lost animals are also collected.
5. CHECKLIST OF INFORMATION REQUIRED

USA: Information on date, time, species, position, length,
OR REQUESTED UNDER SECTION VI OF THE
sex, the length and sex of any foetus if present, killing
SCHEDULE
method and number of struck and lost is collected for 87.5The Checklist was developed as an administrative aid to
100% of the catch. Biological samples are collected from at
the Sub-Committee in helping it to determine whether
least 61% of animals.
obligations under Section VI of the Schedule were being
Russian
Federation:
date, time,
met. It is not C:\Andrea\AC
compulsory for
Contracting
Governments
to
Annual
Report 2012\My
copies\Annex
H Tables.doc
18 Information
April 2013 on10:16
1 species,
position, length, sex, the length and sex of any foetus if
fill in the Checklist although they do have to fulfil their
present, killing method and numbers struck and lost is
obligations under this Section of the Schedule.
collected for 99-100% of the catch.
The available information is summarised here.
116
St. Vincent and The Grenadines: Information on date, time,

species, length, sex, whether the whale is pregnant and/or
lactating and numbers struck and lost is collected for 100%
of the catch and has been submitted to the Secretariat.
Norway and Iceland: the required information has been
submitted to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific
Committee report (IWC/64/Rep1).
6. SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
A summary of National Legislation supplied to the
Commission is given in Table 1.
Sweden noted the number of countries who either have
no legislation or have not submitted it, and encouraged
members to submit all relevant legislation as soon as
possible. Mexico stated its intention to submit its most
recent regulations regarding marine mammals.
7. Other matters
availability, sources and trade in whale products
The Commission has adopted a number of Resolutions
inviting Contracting Governments to report on the availability, sources and trade in whale products:
1994-7 on international trade in whale meat and products;

1995-7 on improving mechanisms to prevent illegal
trade in whale meat;
1996-3 on improving mechanisms to restrict trade and
prevent illegal trade in whale meat;
1997-2 on improved monitoring of whale product
stockpiles; and
1998-8 inter alia reaffirmed the need for Contracting
Governments to observe fully the above Resolutions
addressing trade questions, in particular with regard to
the problem of illegal trade in whale products, and urged
all governments to provide the information specified in
previous resolutions.
No reports were received by the Secretariat on these
resolutions and no comments were made during the meeting.
7.2 Other
No other matters were raised.
8. Adoption of report
The report was adopted by correspondence on 28 June 2012.
Appendix 1
Argentina
Victor Marzari
Miguel Iguez
Australia
Pam Eiser
Stephanie Ierino
Chris Schweizer
Alexia Wellbelove
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Chile
Barbara Galletti
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Denmark
le Samsing
Gitte Hundahl
Amalie Jessen
Nette Levermann
Martin Mennecke
Leif Fontaine
New Zealand
Louise Chilvers
Karena Lyons
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez
Norway
Arne Bjrge
Egil en
Kathrine Ryeng
Truls Soly
Lars Walle (Chair)
Hild Ynnesdal
Germany
Lutz Friedrichsen
Karl-Hermann Kock
Iceland
sta Einarsdottr
Gisli Vkingsson
Panama
Gabriel Despaigne
Japan
Kiyoshi Katsuyama
Takaaki Sakamoto
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko
Valeriy Ottoy
Korea, Republic of
Doo Hae An
Yong-Rock An
St. Lucia
Mexico
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
Switzerland
Bruno Mainini
UK
Jim Gray
Jennifer Lonsdale
Anju Sharda
Mark Simmonds
Jolyon Thomson
USA
Doug DeMaster
Melissa Andersen
Greig Arnold
Charlotte Brower
Eugene Brower
Robert Brownell
Roger Eckert
Brian Gruber
Keith Johnson
Taryn Kiekow
Michael Lawrence
Ira New Breast
117
George Noongwook
Lisa Phelps
Ann Renker
Rollie Schmitten
DJ Schubert
Jonathan Scordino
Michael Tillman
Ryan Wulff
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Cherry Allison
Appendix 2
AGENDA
1. Introductory items
1.2 Appointment of rapporteur
2. Adoption of the Agenda
3. Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
3.1 Reports for 2011
3.2 Follow-up on earlier reports
4. Surveillance of whaling operations
5. Checklist of information required or requested under
section VI of the Schedule
6. Submission of national laws and regulations

7. Other matters
7.1 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and trade in whale products
7.2 Other
8. Adoption of the Report
Terms of reference: The Infractions Sub-committee
considers matters and documents relating to the International
Observer Scheme and Infractions insofar as they involve
monitoring of compliance with the Schedule and penalties
for infractions thereof (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 29: 22).
118
Appendix 3
Summary of Infractions Reports received by the Commission FOR 2011
Under the terms of the Convention, each Contracting
Government is required to transmit to the Commission full
details of each infraction of the provisions of the Convention
committed by persons and vessels under the jurisdiction
of the Government. Note that although lost whales are
traditionally reported, they are not intrinsically infractions.
Catch and associated data for commercial and scientific
permit catches were submitted to the IWC Secretariat

(IWC/64/Rep1). Aboriginal subsistence catches and infractions are summarised in Tables 1a and 1b. Table 2 gives
details of the infractions reported in the 2011 season and
Table 3 gives information on the unresolved or previously
unreported infractions from earlier seasons.
Table 1a
Summary of Aboriginal subsistence catches and infractions reported for the 2011 season.
Nation
Males
Females
Total landed
Lost
Total
Infractions/comments
Fin whale
Minke whale
Bowhead whale
Humpback whale
Minke whale
0
39
0
4
0
5
133
1
4
9
5
1732
1
8
9
0
6
0
0
1
5
179
1
8
10
11
None
None
None
None
St. Vincent and The Grenadines

Humpback whale
13
14
None
16
20
385
13
51
16
58
68
126
128
None
Denmark
West
Greenland
East Greenland
USA
Species
Bowhead whale
Russian Federation
Gray whale
1
See Table 2, infraction 2011.1. Includes 1 animal of unknown sex. The Secretariat was informed of the sex of this animal after the meeting of the
Infractions Sub-Committee. 4The struck and lost whale was not reported until after the meeting of the Infractions Sub-Committee. 5Includes 2 animals of
unknown sex. 6 See Table 2, infraction 2011.2.
Table 1b
Summary of Commercial catches and other infractions reported for the 2011 season.
Nation
Iceland
Norway
Species
Males
Females
Total landed
Lost
Total
Infractions/comments
Minke whale
45
13
58
58
None
Minke whale
163
364
527
533
None
217
Republic of Korea
Minke whale
7
See table 2, infractions 2011.3-7.
119

Table 2
List of infractions from the 2011 season.
Ref.
Nation
Species
2011.1
Greenland
/Denmark
Fin
whale
14m
08/08/11
2011.2
USA
Bowhead
6.6m
8 Sep.
2011
2011.3
2011.4
2011.5
Korea
Korea
Korea
Sex Length
8 minke Unk. 5-8 m

whales
2 minke Unk.
whales
Minke
whale
Unk.
7.8m
Unk.
6m
Date
Infraction
(specify)
Penalty/action
Length
under
15.2m
Qeqertarsuaq (West Greenland).

Reporting form filled out by hunter
showed that a fin whale was caught,
which was ~1m shorter than the legal
minimum catch length of 15.2m
An administrative warning
was given in writing. The
whale had already been
flensed so no proper control
length measurement was
possible. It is not possible to
measure a swimming whale
to an accuracy of 1 metre.
Yes
Calf
A calf was inadvertently taken by a

crew from the village of Kaktovik
during the fall bowhead whale
subsistence hunt. During a hearing by
the AEWC Board of Commissioners,
it was found that crew in the area
observed a whale that appeared to be
unaccompanied. After the whale was
struck, another whale surfaced in the
same area. After landing, it was
determined that the struck whale was
a calf. Therefore, it is assumed that
the other whale which surfaced after
the strike was a cow or another adult
accompanying the calf.
A hearing by the AEWC

Board of Commissioners,
held on October 4, 2011,
found that the strike of the
calf was unintentional and an
accident resulting from the
fact that the calf appeared to
be unaccompanied prior to
the strike.
Yes
On May 2nd, a vessel in conjunction

with other three vessels caught a
minke whale with a harpoon in the
coastal waters of ~14 miles from
Ulsan, Korea. In similar operations,
these vessels caught a total of 8
minke whales in the area up until
August 16 2011.
8 violators: 6-10 months

imprisonment and 2 years
probation with monetary
penalties (5-35,000 dollars).
On April 9, three vessels caught a

minke whale with a harpoon in
coastal waters ~14 miles from Ulsan,
Korea.
On July 11, the same vessels caught
one minke whale with a harpoon in
Korea.

probation with monetary
On May 21,
whale with
waters ~15
in northern
Korea.

imprisonment, 2 years probation
with
monetary
penalties (2-4,000 dollars)
and 80 hours community
service.
02/05/11
17/05/11
21/05/11
24/05/11
27/05/11
19/06/11
11/07/11
16/08/11
Illegal
catch
09/04/11
07/11/11
Illegal
catch
21/05/11
Investigation
complete?
Explanation
Illegal
catch
a vessel caught a minke

a harpoon in coastal
miles from Youngdeok
Gyeongsang province,
No sanction was imposed.
Yes
2 violators: suspension of
prosecution.
Yes
1 violator: monetary penalty

(5,000 dollars).
Yes
3 violators: monetary penalty

(5-7,000 dollars).
2011.6
Korea
9 minke Unk.
whale
5-8m
09/04/11
17/05/11
21/05/11
01/06/11
05/06/11
10/06/11
18/06/11
05/07/11
06/07/11
Illegal
catch
On April 9, a vessel in conjunction

with other three vessels caught a
minke whale with a harpoon in the
Korea. In similar operations, these
vessels caught a total of nine minke
whales in the area up until August 6
2011.

imprisonment, 2 years probation
with
monetary
penalties (2-11,000 dollars)
and 120 hours community
service.
Yes
3 violators: 10 months of
probation.
imprisonment with monetary
1 violator: 3,000
monetary penalty.
2011.7
Korea
Minke
whale
Unk.
5m
16/05/11
Illegal
catch
dollars
A vessel operated in the area of Song- 6 violators: pending in court

do Port, Boryoung, in Chungnam
province from April 15 for the
purpose of illegally catching minke
whales and caught one minke whale
with a harpoon in coastal waters ~23
miles from Gunsan.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\My copies\Annex H Tables.doc
18 April 2013
10:16
Pending
120

Table 3
List of unresolved or previously unreported infractions from earlier seasons and follow-up actions. Note: infraction 2009.22 has not previously been
reported to this Sub-Committee.
Ref.
Nation
2010.1 Greenland
/Denmark
Species
Sex Length
Minke
5m
Date
05/0810
Infraction
(specify)
Explanation
Penalty/action
Use of Paamiut (West Greenland). A cold Reported to the police.

cold
harpoon was used as secondary Investigation
resulted
in
harpoon killing method.
monetary penalties.
Investigation
complete?
Yes
2010.3
Iceland
Fin
66 feet 30/06/10 Lactating No calf was seen.
Fine of 362,832 Icelandic

kroner (IKR).
Yes.
2010.4
Iceland
Fin
65 feet 12/09/10 Lactating No calf was seen.
Fine of 362,832 Icelandic

kroner (IKR).
Yes.
2010.14
Korea
Minke
whale
Unk.
Unk.
23/0810 No quota Crew members were caught dis- 3 violators: 6-8 months
carding bags containing whale meat imprisonment and 2 years
when a patrol vessel approached a probation.
vessel in coastal waters 5 miles
southeast of Jukbyun, northern
Gyeongsang province. A detailed
inspection was conducted and bags
of illegally caught and dismembered
minke whale were found in the well
of the vessel. The crew members
were arrested.
Yes
2009.19
Korea
Minke
whale
Unk.
Unk.
23/11/09 No quota A fishing vessel caught a minke 3 violators: 10 months

whale with a harpoon in coastal imprisonment and 2 years
waters
near
Yeongdeok-gum probation.
GyeongBuk; it was cut up and the
meat taken on board a boat.
Yes
2009.22 Norway 14 minke Unk.
Unk.
2009
Use of **See below

cold
harpoon
The captain was sentenced to

a fine of 12,000NK. In
addition, the fishery authorities had refused the vessels
application for participation in
the whale hunt in 2010.
Furthermore the value of the
illegal catch (163,000NK) was
confiscated.
** Infraction report 2009

All vessels permitted to take part in the Norwegian minke whale hunt, are instructed to keep a catch log book which shall be sent to the Directorate of Fisheries
by the end of the season. Violation of this order may result in denial of permission to take part in the hunt the following year. The information in the catch log
book is compared with the information recorded by the Electronic Trip Recorder (Blue Box) developed in 2001-05 (IWC/57/RMS8). In addition to the log book
and Blue Box, inspectors from the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries conduct periodic and random checks of the hunt at sea and on land.
Each harpoon grenade has a serial number which shall be recorded in the log book when the whale is shot. In 2009 the mandatory subsequent control of
the catch log books at the Directorate of Fisheries, revealed that on one vessel only 14 harpoon grenades had been used to catch 26 minke whales.
The Directorate of Fisheries suspected an infringement of the mandatory use of harpoon grenades (IWC/58/WKM&AWI25) in the hunt and reported this
incident to the police. The case has thus since 2009 been going through the legal system. In December 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the sentence in which
the captain was found guilty in 14 incidents of intentional use of cold grenade harpoon.
The captain was sentenced to a fine by the court in 2011. In addition, the fishery authorities had refused the vessels application for participation in the whale
hunt in 2010. Furthermore the value of the illegal catch was confiscated.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\My copies\Annex H Tables.doc
18 April 2013
10:16
121
Annex I
Catches by IWC Member Nations in the 2011
and 2011/2012 seasons
Prepared by the Secretariat
Fin
Humpback
Sei
Brydes
Minke
Sperm
Bowhead
Gray
Operation
North Atlantic
Denmark
(West Greenland)
(East Greenland)
Iceland
Norway
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
5
-
8
22
1791
102
58
5333
-
1
-
Whaling under reservation
Whaling under objection
North Pacific
Japan
Korea
Russian Federation
USA
964
-
50
-
126
215
-
1
-
517
1286
-
Special Permit
Illegal catch
266
Antarctic
Japan
1
Special Permit
5
Note: Bycatches are not included. Including 6 struck and lost. Including 1 struck and lost. Including 6 lost. Including 1 lost. See IWC/64/Rep 4rev for
details. 6Including 2 struck and lost. 7Including 13 struck and lost.
122
sixty-FOURTH annual meeting, annex J
Annex J
Report of the Finance and Administration Committee
Thursday 28 June 2012, Panam City, Republic of Panama
Note: Appendix 4 contains revisions to the draft rule changes proposed by the Intersessional Group on Biennial Meetings and
Bureau. The draft rule changes will inter alia implement the Commissions move to biennial meetings and will establish a
Bureau.
Donna Petrachenko (Australia) was appointed as Chair of
the Committee. She noted that attendance at the Finance and
Administration (F&A) Committee was limited to delegates
and that observers were not permitted to attend.
1.2 Appointment of rapporteurs
Simon Brockington and Cherry Allison of the Secretariat
agreed to act as rapporteurs with assistance from Allison
Reed (USA).
The documents available to the Committee are listed in
Appendix 2.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
3.1 Annual Meeting arrangements and procedures
The Chair reminded the Committee that no provision had
been made for a Technical Committee to meet at Annual
Meetings since IWC/51 in 1999. However last year, as in
previous years, the Commission had agreed to keep the need
for a Technical Committee under review. The Chair noted
that the need for a Technical Committee may be further
discussed as part of the development of measures required
to support a move to biennial meetings. It was proposed to
return to this issue after discussion on Item 3.1.3, however
no further discussion took place.
3.1.2 Report of the Intersessional Group on Quorum
Following discussions on the proposed South Atlantic
Sanctuary at IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission agreed to
establish an Intersessional Group on Quorum (the IGQ) to
consider the interpretation of its rules relating to quorum.
The Chair of the IGQ, Gerard van Bohemen (New Zealand),
introduced the draft recommendations from the IGQ as
outlined in IWC/2012/IGQ3. The Chair of the IGQ noted
that most of the members of the IGQ viewed quorum as a
continuing requirement that must apply throughout a meeting,
and in particular must apply at the point of decision-making.
However one member had suggested that quorum should be
determined at the beginning of the meeting or session and
be deemed to continue for the remainder of that session. The
IGQ had also addressed the question of whether countries
with voting rights suspended under Rule of Procedure E.2
should be counted towards the quorum.
IWC/2012/IGQ3 made the following proposal to

clarify Rule of Procedure B.1 relating to how the quorum
requirement should be applied at the point of decision
making:
The presence in the room of Attendance by a majority
of the members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum, which shall be required for any decision to be
taken. The Chair will announce prior to each vote if a
quorum is present. If participants choose to leave after
the announcement, or do not participate in the vote, the
quorum shall be considered to remain.
Additionally, in responding to IWC/2012/IGQ2, one
member had proposed a further clarification to the above
draft change which included placement of part of the text
under Rule F dealing with duties of the Chair:
B.1 The presence in the room of Attendance by a majority
of the members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum which shall apply to all types of Commission
business including the opening and adjournment of all
sessions of a meeting, proceeding with the debate and
decision making, whether by vote or by consensus.
F.2. (c) to announce prior to each vote if a quorum is
present. If members of the Commission choose to leave
after the announcement, or do not participate in the
vote, the quorum shall be considered to remain. The
Chair shall also to call for votes and to announce the
result of the vote to the Commission.
IWC/2012/IGQ3 contained one further proposal relating
to the application of quorum at the point of decision making
which allowed quorum to be determined at the start of the
session:
The presence at the start of the session of Attendance
by a majority of the members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, which shall be required for any
decision to be taken. The Chair will announce prior to
each vote if a quorum is present. If participants choose
to leave after the announcement, or do not participate
in the vote, the quorum shall be considered to remain.
Additionally, the IGQ had also considered whether
countries whose voting rights were suspended under Rule
E.2 should be counted towards quorum. There was an almost
even division of views within the IGQ on this issue.
South Africa asked whether the second proposed amendment to B.1 would require a quorum to be present to adjourn
the meeting. The F&A Committee noted that clarification
was required on this point.
Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, the
USA, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and others
indicated a preference for option 1 (that quorum be ongoing

but especially determined at point of decision), while the
UK, Germany and Monaco indicated a preference for option
2 (that quorum be determined at the start of the session).
Costa Rica indicated a preference for some combination of
the first and second options. In elaborating a preference for
option 2, the UK illustrated how such flexibility would assist
with situations in which late night negotiations occurred.
Argentina and Mexico considered that the current rules
did not need amendment but that the overall quorum issues
should be addressed at the private Commissioners meeting
on 1 July 2012.
The Russian Federation raised the issue of intersessional
or special meetings and how quorum should be considered
in those situations. It suggested that once the need for an
intersessional meeting was established it would be useful for
the Commission to ascertain which countries would attend
so as to determine if there would be a quorum present.
The Committee then discussed whether the suspension of
voting rights should be considered when calculating quorum.
IWC/2012/IGQ3 recognised the even division of opinion on
this issue amongst the members of the intersessional group.
Mexico noted that in principle the proposal to exclude
countries with suspended voting rights from the quorum was
a fair one, but noted its concern that there were a number
of countries unable to pay on time because of difference in
timing of financial years. Germany and the UK supported
excluding countries with suspended voting rights from the
quorum and said Rule B.1 should be amended to reflect
this using text contained in Annex B to IWC/2012/IGQ3.
Japan introduced IWC/64/F&A13 which illustrated the low
number of Contracting Parties who would have formed the
quorum at IWC/63 if quorum had been linked to voting
rights, and stated its strong preference not to link voting
rights to quorum. The purpose of quorum was to ensure
the broad participation of the Commission, so linking
voting rights to quorum would effectively limit the active
participation of delegations, especially from developing
countries.
Conclusion
The Chair remarked on the growing consensus around
the first proposed change to Rule (B.1), but noted some
Contracting Governments showing preference for other
options. The Chair also recalled South Africas question
about whether or not quorum would be needed to adjourn a
meeting, and also recognised that there was no consensus on
linking voting rights to quorum. The Chair concluded that a
summary of the discussion would be provided to inform the
further deliberations at the private Commissioners meeting
on 1 July 2012.
3.1.3 Report of the Intersessional Group on Biennial
Meetings and Establishment of a Bureau
The 2011 meeting of the F&A Committee noted the
widespread support for moving to biennial Commission
meetings. Consequently a small Intersessional Group on
Biennial Meetings and Establishment of a Bureau (the IGBB) was convened to prepare a series of actions to enable the
Commission to meet every two years from 2012 onwards.
The intersessional group worked by correspondence
and produced four documents (IG-BB1-4) for the F&A
Committees consideration. The IG-BB also met in person
on the day before the F&A Committee to further refine its
proposals.
The USA introduced the final recommendations from the
IG-BB which were as follows.
123
The IG-BB recommended that the F&A Committee

make the following recommendations to the Commission
regarding its meeting schedule.
T
he Commission will move to a biennial meeting
schedule after the 64th Annual Meeting so that the
Commission will meet next in 2014.
- The Scientific Committee recommended that 6 year
aboriginal subsistence whaling strike limits are safe
for the next block.
- The Budgetary Sub-Committee recommended to the
F&A Committee an option for a 2-year budget.
T
he Scientific Committee of the Commission shall
continue to meet on an annual basis, in the May/June
timeframe. Other than the Scientific Committees annual
meetings, the normal practice of the Commission is to
hold Committee and subsidiary body meetings prior to
the meeting of the Commission. This does not preclude
intersessional work of subsidiary bodies from continuing.
- The Commission endorsed an F&A recommendation
at IWC/63 to hold the Commission meeting approximately [at least] 100 days following the close of the
Scientific Committee meeting.
T
he Commission will establish a Bureau to replace the
Advisory Committee. It shall be comprised of the Chair
of the Commission, the Vice-Chair of the Commission,
the Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee,
and four commissioners representing a range of views
and regional interests. The host government for the next
meeting of the Commission will serve in an ex officio
capacity. The Secretary will attend the Bureau meetings
in an ex officio capacity.
T
he Chair of the Commission will serve as the Chair
of the Bureau and may call upon Chairs of other of the
Commissions subsidiary bodies to participate in Bureau
discussions, as appropriate. The Bureau will not be open
to observers.
T
he Bureau will support the work of the Commission
by providing advice to the Chair of the Commission and
the Secretariat on work ongoing under the Convention,
especially at times when the Commission is not in
session. To this end, the Bureau will:
- provide advice to the Chair and Secretariat on
- assist and advise the Secretariat on administrative
Commission;
- assist in the preparation for meetings of the Commission
and Subsidiary Bodies;
- review progress of work of the Committees; and
- provide support to the Chair during meetings of the
Commission, as may be requested by the Chair.
T
he Bureaus mandate is to assist with process
management. It would not be a decision-making forum,
and shall not deal with substantive or policy matters
under the Convention. The Bureau may consider issues
related to financial or administrative tasks within the
scope of the Finance and Administration Committee, but
only in the context of making recommendations to that
Committee.
Australia thanked the IG-BB for their work and noted
that in the run up to IWC/64 there had been extensive work
undertaken by a number of the Commissions Committees,
Sub-Committees, Working Groups and intersessional groups
that had been helpful to advancing the Commissions overall
124
work programme. It noted that there would be expectation

for the intersessional work to continue but that there was no
need to state this explicitly in the IG-BBs recommendations.
France supported the IG-BBs recommendations, and stated
that the need for intersessional work would be decided on a
case by case basis.
Mexico and Guinea requested that the membership of the
Bureau also reflect the geographic and regional membership
of Contracting Parties.
The Chair then requested that the proposals and draft
rule changes developed by the IG-BB be further refined in
the light of the F&A Committees discussions. The USA,
Japan and St. Lucia completed this task after the meeting and
the refined draft rule changes, which include the formation
of a Bureau, are provided as Appendix 4 for discussion and
endorsement by the Commission.
The Chair introduced IWC/64/Rep7 which contained the
recommendations of the Working Group on the Role of
Observers which had met the previous day. The Working
Group recommended that the thirty minute period for
hearing NGO spoken interventions should be a base time
allowance for IWC/64. Furthermore, the group recognised
that the Chair would need to exercise discretion so as to
allow the debate to flow smoothly, and therefore the group
recommended that the NGO interventions would be specific
to subjects that would be identified in advance through
discussions between the Chair and NGOs. The group also
recommended that the Chair should work to find a balance
of representation in NGO interventions, and recognised
that this representation should include both thematic and
geographical contexts.
In recognition of a request made by a host government,
the group also recommended that some flexibility be allowed
in the implementation of the above proposal for involvement
of NGOs. In particular, the group recommended that the 30
minute allowance should be considered as a minimum which
could be slightly expanded upon as the meeting moves
forward within the overall time allowance for the meeting
as the Chair sees fit.
Norway stressed its preference for the thematic aspect
to over-ride geographical contexts in selecting observer
organisation interventions. Norway, Iceland, Sweden and
Guinea stated that the Commission should aim for a total of
30 minutes of interventions.
Argentina, Chile, Mexico and the Netherlands agreed
with the Working Groups proposal that the minimum
amount of time should be 30 minutes, and also agreed that
geographic distribution and balance of observer organisations
must be considered when calling observers to speak. They
stressed that observers should be able to determine those
agenda items on which they wished to intervene, and that
the total number of items should not be limited to three or
four as proposed. The UK stressed the importance of the
Chairs discretion in terms of how, when and for how long
interventions from observers would be heard. The USA
supported the interventions from Norway and Argentina.
Australia, the USA and New Zealand considered that the 30
minute proposal should be a minimum with interventions
heard at the Chairs discretion. France also stressed the
role of the Chair in managing the time allotted for observer
interventions.
Denmark and St. Vincent and The Grenadines supported
the thematic context as the overriding consideration for
achieving balance and noted that the distribution of NGOs
is based more on thematic contexts than geographical.

Denmark also noted that the rule of thumb should be for
30 minutes and not be framed as a minimum as this would
also require a maximum. Denmark also emphasised the
code of conduct, and the obligation of the Chair to ensure
the observers did not target specific countries or groups of
countries.
Japan supported the points raised by Norway, Iceland,
Sweden and Denmark and noted the importance of
participation of civil society when time allowed, although
priority had to be given to Contracting Governments. Japan
indicated that the 30 minutes minimum could be slightly
expanded as recommended by the Working Group and the
overall time allowance should be at the Chairs discretion.
Monaco supported enhanced observer participation and
acknowledged the interest in a code of conduct encouraging
constructive interventions. Monaco further indicated that it
was comfortable with thematic balance as a logical entry
point, but stressed that 30 minutes over 5 days of Plenary
was unsatisfactory as it showed no progress. In Monacos
view, observers should be given 5% of total meeting time.
Conclusion
The Chair summarised the discussions which indicated that
the minimum total time for NGO interventions was to be 30
minutes, and that although 30 minutes over 5 days is a short
period of time that primacy must be given to Contracting
Parties. It would also be at the discretion of the Chair how
to use the time, or to show some additional flexibility. The
Chair said that a summary of the discussions under this Item
will be brought to the private Commissioners meeting on 1
July 2012.
3.2 Website
3.2.1 Maintenance and expansion
The Secretary introduced the pre-launch version of the new
IWC website which was available for review at http://demo.
iwcoffice.org. The website had been re-designed to improve
navigation and ensure clearer communication through use
of a new font and colour scheme. Recognising the request
in Resolution 2011-1 for meeting documents to be included
on the website as an archive, the new site included: (1)
scanned copies of Annual Reports dating back to IWC/1; (2)
scanned copies of Chairs Reports dating to 1955; and (3) an
archive of all meeting documents dating back to 2006. When
launched, the website will be moved to a .int (international)
domain address. The Secretariat indicated their intention
to further develop the website post launch, and invited
comments to help prioritise future work.
Monaco congratulated the Secretariat for modernising
the website and enquired whether it was possible to include
a search function so as to allow past Chairs and Annual
reports to be searched. The Secretary indicated that the
scanned documents were images only rather than character
recognition scans, and so the search function available
through the new website would be unable to search the
reports. The Secretary noted that character recognition scans
of the reports were available upon request to the Secretariat,
but that the quality of character recognition meant that these
scans could not be relied upon as the authoritative records of
the meetings. South Africa asked if it was possible to have
access to scans of the verbatim records, and the Secretary
remarked that this would be a large task and his initial
intention was to complete the archive of meeting documents
first.
Mexico, Australia and Spain congratulated the Secretariat
on the appearance of the new site and requested the addition
of text describing the structure of the Commission and

how it related to its operations and general functioning.
The Secretary indicated this would be a priority for further
development post-launch.
3.2.2 Translation
The Secretary reported through document IWC/64/F&A9
that translation of the 17 most popular pages on the old
website had been undertaken into French and Spanish.
Noting the budgetary constraints in increasing the level
of translation France, Spain and Guinea requested the
Secretariat to include a financial provision for translation
into future budget proposals. Japan acknowledged the need
for translation but also recognised the constrained nature of
the budget.
The Chair expressed thanks to the Secretariat for the
overall work on the website, brought forward Monacos
suggestion that the number of pages to be translated should
be raised to 20, and suggested that proposals to allow further
translation should be included in the budget subject to
financial constraints.
3.3 Report of the Working Group on Provision of
Assistance to Governments with Limited Means to
Participate in the Commissions work
The Secretariat introduced document IWC/2012/
WGAGLM3 which contained proposals developed by the
Working Group on Provision of Assistance to Governments
of Limited Means to participate in the Commissions work
(WG-AGLM). The groups recommendations included
the establishment of a voluntary assistance fund, although
the group had not been able to fully agree the purpose for
which the funds should be disbursed. It had agreed that
Group One countries should be eligible for assistance with
priority being given to those with least GNI where available
funds were insufficient to support all Group One countries.
Assistance could also be extended to Group Two countries
where resources allowed. Different opinions were expressed
on whether suspension of voting rights should affect
prioritisation for funding. The WG-AGLM had developed
a draft Resolution to establish the voluntary fund within the
IWC which drew on the model used by the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission through their Resolution C-1111. The Secretary noted that the draft Resolution required
sponsorship from a Contracting Government.
The USA, Australia, Japan, Argentina and the UK
supported the establishment of a voluntary assistance
fund and expressed interest in participating in a Working
Group to develop the wording of the Resolution to ensure
compatibility with Article III.5 of the Convention.
Conclusion
The Chair recognised that the general consensus was for
the establishment of a voluntary assistance fund and the
Working Group should recommend a procedure as to how
the decision is made on disbursement of funds. Work would
also need to take place on the compatibility of the Resolution
text with Article III.5. Any country interested in sponsoring
the Resolution should identify itself to the Working Group.
3.4 Review of the work of the Technical Adviser
The Secretariat thanked the USA for proposing the
secondment in 2011 (IWC/63/F&A10) of a technical expert
to work on issues related to reducing conflicts with cetaceans,
focusing primarily on large whale entanglement and ship
strikes (IWC/63/F&A10), which had been proposed by
125
Australia, Norway and the USA (IWC/63/WKM&AWI8).

The Commission recognised the importance of these issues
to whale welfare, conservation and human safety. All short
term initiatives in IWC/64/F&A6 had been accomplished
and reported through a number of documents including:
(1) the report of the Provincetown Workshop (IWC/64/
WKM&AWI Rep1); and (2) the resulting capacity building
reported in IWC/64/WKM&AWI11. These documents
recommended the formation of an expert group under the
auspices of the IWC to represent every active National
Entanglement Response Network in the world. Progress was
also made on most long-term and additional initiatives; in
particular IWC/64/CC13 detailed progress on ship strikes.
Further information is being gathered for a potential IWC
workshop on the prevention of large whale entanglement.
Argentina, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador
and other Member Governments thanked David Mattila
for his work, and also thanked the USA for supporting the
financial costs of his secondment to the Secretariat. While
the USA was unable to guarantee the extension of Davids
secondment to the Secretariat at the current time, especially
given the potential of the Commission moving to biennial
meetings, the USA indicated it is looking to facilitate Davids
continued work if that is acceptable to the Commission.
The Chair recorded the F&A Committees great
appreciation for the progress made through David Mattilas
secondment, and looked forward to a positive response from
the USA for the continuation of his work.
4. OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
At IWC/63 the Commission adopted Resolution 20111 which inter alia resolved to include the effectiveness
of the operations of the IWC as a regular item on the
Commissions agenda so as to ensure the Commissions
rules and procedures are kept up to date with international
good practice, and to address any specific problems or issues
arising in the operation of the Commission.
The USA, supported by Australia and the UK, stated
it was pleased that this agenda item is now part of the
Commissions work. The USA noted that it is helpful for
the Commission to periodically review how it is operating,
not only to ensure fiscal responsibility, but also to ensure
the Commission is meeting its mandate to conserve and
manage the worlds whale populations. The USA noted that
as the Commission is moving toward biennial meetings
that this could be considered as part of a move to increase
operational effectiveness. The USA further suggested that the
Commission develop a forward-looking work programme to
assist development of further improvements to operational
effectiveness.
Conclusion
The Chair noted that if a decision is made to move to biennial
meetings then intersessional work could be undertaken to
further improve the operation of the Commission. The move
to setting up a Bureau could be seen as part of improving
operational effectiveness and links to the next agenda item
Cost-Saving Measures.
5. COST-SAVING MEASURES
The Secretary introduced document IWC/64/F&A11 which
focused on reduction of freight charges and increased use of
electronic documents at Annual Meetings of the Scientific
Committee and Commission. A review of expenditure in
2011 suggested that the cost of maintaining a paper based
126
infrastructure for the meetings was approximately 77K (5%

of IWC core budget). Particular costs arose from packing
and airfreight of the pigeon holes, pre-prepared documents
and the hire of high volume copiers.
This year the Scientific Committee had agreed to receive
primary documents in future in electronic format only and
the Commission was invited to explore similar measures.
The Committee agreed to the suggestion by the Secretary
that for Commission meetings all documents would be
placed on the website and any documents received close
to or during the meeting would be distributed via tables at
the back of the room instead of through the pigeon holes.
Savings in airfreight charges for pigeon holes are estimated
at 5-10K.
Japan supported the cost-saving measures and the move
to the use of electronic documents but requested that the
date that each document was added to the website be clearly
indicated. The Secretary noted that document dates were
stamped at the foot of each page, and agreed to also place
the date on website. The Chair commented that internet
connections must be reliable at any meeting venue if paper
documents are not available. South Africa suggested that if
intersessional work is done electronically rather than meeting
in person then additional cost-savings could be made. The
USA supported the move to electronic documents.
Conclusion
The Chair suggested that Operational Effectiveness and
Cost-Saving Measures should be a combined agenda item
and the USA agreed to convene a Working Group to meet
intersessionally for continued discussions on this item.
6. FORMULA FOR CALCULATING
CONTRIBUTIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
The formula for calculating financial contributions
(otherwise known as the Interim Measure) has been in place
for several years. The Chair of the BSC referred to the BSCs
recommendation that the F&A Committee should now adopt
the formula for calculating contributions, and that the word
interim be removed from its name. The F&A Committee
endorsed this recommendation.
7. REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL
CORRESPONDENCE GROUP ON
STRENGTHENING IWC FINANCING
The Chair of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on
Strengthening IWC Financing (ICGSF), Nicola Clarke
(UK), introduced document IWC/64/F&A3 which contained
a series of 11 recommendations to support the shared goal
of rebuilding and maintaining healthy whale populations
and injecting budget discipline to ensure rigorous financial
practices in how the IWC conducts its business. The first
three recommendations had been developed to improve
accounting transparency and assist IWC decision-making.
The remaining recommendations were aimed at: (1) creating
the environment for funding; (2) establishing an eligibility
and approvals process for projects; and (3) establishing a
dedicated fund to receive external donations. The Chair of
the ICGSF stated the groups intention to further develop this
work in the intersessional period with a view to presenting
it and a Resolution to IWC/65 on the establishment of a
dedicated fund.
The USA supported the work of the ICGSF and thanked
Australia for their funding contribution which had been
used to hire an expert to help explore external funding
opportunities. It supported the recommendations, and noted
that some (on financial reporting) had already started to be

implemented by the Secretariat. Australia thanked the Chair
and agreed with the recommendations in IWC/64/F&A3.
Mexico indicated its desire to support the proposed project
dealing with entanglement and suggested it should be
renamed as dealing with mitigation of bycatch.
Conclusion
The Chair recognised that this is a way forward for the
Commission, especially in difficult financial times, thanked
the UK for the leadership shown, and looked forward to
further work on this issue.
8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BUDGETS AND
OTHER MATTERS ADDRESSED BY THE
BUDGETARY SUB-COMMITTEE
8.1 Review of the provisional financial statement
2011/12
8.1.1 Report of the Budgetary Sub-committee
The Chair referred to the BSCs recommendation that
the F&A Committee take note of the provision financial
statement for the current financial year 2011/12 and approve
it subject to audit. In conveying this recommendation the
BSC Chair drew attention to the number of new Contracting
Governments who had not paid their financial contributions
this year, and noted that the calculation of the provision for
unpaid contributions was based on all countries who had
paid in the previous financial year (2010/11) also paying
in this financial year (2011/12). The Secretary noted that if
any of these Contracting Governments failed to pay it would
create overspend which would negatively affect the size of
the Commissions general reserve.
The F&A Committee recommended that the Commission
adopt the provisional financial statement for 2011/12 subject
to audit after the close of the financial year.
The F&A Committee also agreed to the BSCs
recommendation that a standing item be added to the
BSC agenda to report the length of time served by the
Commissions auditor, and to re-confirm their appointment
for the following annual or biennial period as appropriate.
8.1.2 Secretarys report on the collection of financial
contributions
The Secretary introduced IWC/64/F&A10 which indicated
that total debts of 547,000 were still outstanding from 21
Contracting Governments. This figure was higher than in
previous years, and the Secretary repeated the statement
made by the Chair of the BSC at Item 8.1.1 that any
additional Member Governments who failed to pay this
year as compared to last year would create a situation of
overspend which would negatively affect the size of the
general fund at the end of the 2011/2012 financial year.
The F&A Committee agreed to the BSCs recommendation that the Secretary will present a review of the
Financial Regulations to the next BSC meeting outlining any
additional measures that can be taken to assist Contracting
Governments in arrears of payments to pay their outstanding
dues.
8.1.3 Correspondence from the Government of Uruguay
The Secretary referred to document IWC/64/F&A8 which
was a letter from the Government of Uruguay explaining their
intention to pay their outstanding financial contributions in
full in October. Noting that the Secretariat had subsequently
received a preliminary advice that Uruguay was expecting
to pay its dues ahead of the Annual Meeting the Chair
suggested that this matter be deferred to the private meeting

of Commissioners on 1 July 2012, by which time Uruguay
may have been able to clear its outstanding debt.
8.2 Consideration of future budgets
The F&A Committee agreed with the BSCs
recommendation that the future budget scenarios contained
in document IWC/64/7 be adopted by the Commission, with
the choice of Option 1 or 2 being determined according
to whether the Commission decides to move to a biennial
meeting cycle.
The F&A Committee also agreed with the BSCs recommendation that the NGO observer fee be raised to 565
for the first observer and 280 for each additional observer
if the next meeting is held in 2013, and to 580 for the
first observer and 285 for the second observer if the next
meeting is held in 2014. The BSC recommended that press
fees should be raised to 75 (2013) and 80 (2014).
8.3 Changes to the timing of the Commissions financial
year in light of the decision to separate meetings of the
Scientific Committee and Commission
At IWC/63 in 2011 the Commission adopted a
recommendation from the F&A Committee to separate the
meetings of the Scientific Committee and Commission by
a period of 100 days or longer, with the best time for the
Scientific Committee meeting being in late May and early
June. In future years this is likely to lead to the Commission
needing to approve a budget for a financial year which has
already commenced.
The Chair of the BSC reviewed the Committees
discussions on this issue, and recommended that the
Commission should change its financial year from the
current timing of 1 September-31 August to 1 January-31
December. The BSC further agreed that the Secretary
would provide a series of options for allowing individual
Contracting Governments to pay the charge associated with
the four month bridging period, and that this should include
the option to spread the charge over a series of future years.
The Chair of the BSC also recommended that the
Secretary should continue to operate the Commissions
finances at a level of expenditure consistent with the previous
financial year during the two month period in either 2013 or
2014 after the end of the agreed budget period and prior to
the next Commission meeting.
The F&A Committee endorsed these recommendations
from the Budgetary Sub-committee.
8.4 Budgetary Sub-committee operations
8.4.1 Membership and open seats
The Chair of the BSC reported that there were two open seats
on the Sub-committee, and urged Contracting Governments
to consider coming forwards.
127
8.5 Recommendation from the ASW Sub-Committee

The Chair noted a recommendation from the ASW SubCommittee for the Commission to consider establishing a
voluntary fund at IWC/65 to support work associated with
the management of aboriginal subsistence whaling.
9. DATE AND PLACE OF FORTHCOMING
MEETINGS
The Secretariat referred to document IWC/64/F&A7
which outlined the initial arrangements for next meetings,
and confirmed that the Secretariat had recently sent out a
Circular Communication inviting Contracting Governments
to consider offering to host either the next Scientific
Committee or Commission meeting or both.
The Chair recognised the difficulty in offering to host
given the uncertainty around the date of the next Commission
meeting and hoped that offers would come forward during
the Commission Plenary.
10. Personnel matters of the
secretariat
Several Contracting Governments raised the question of
how to arrange future recruitment to the Secretariat and
recognised it may be useful to provide guidance so as to ensure
retention of corporate knowledge and to take advantage of
opportunities for the Secretariat to internationalise itself.
After discussion, the F&A Committee recommended
that the future recruitment policy could be decided either
by a Bureau (should one be established through the move
to biennial meetings) or developed through a dedicated
working group established for the purpose.
11. CHAIR OF THE F&A COMMITTEE
The Chair reminded the Committee that her three year term
of appointment will expire at the end of the Commissions
64th Annual Meeting and requested nominations for
candidates to take over the Chairs role. In response the UK
requested the current Chair (Donna Petrachenko, Australia)
to consider serving for an additional period of time. The
Chair thanked the UK for this suggestion, and noted that
the final decision on Chair of the F&A Committee would be
made during the Commission Plenary.
The report was adopted by post on 2 July 2012.
128
Appendix 1
Argentina
Miguel Iguez
Victor Marzari
Australia
Pam Eiser
Stephanie Ierino
Peter Komidar
Donna Petrachenko (Chair)
Chris Schweitzer
Victoria Wadley
Alexia Wellbelove
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Chile
Barbara Galletti
Colombia
Lilian Florez Gonzalez
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Ricardo Meneses
Denmark
le Samsing
Gitte Hundahl
Amalie Jessen
Nette Levermann
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez
Ecuador
Gustavo Iturralde
Jorge Samaniego
France
Martine Bigan
Jean-Philippe Gavois
Germany
Walter Duebner
Lutz Fredrichten
Ghana
Mike Akyeampong
Guinea, Republic of
Amadou Telivel Diallo
Iceland
Johann Gudmundsson
sta Einarsdottr
Gisli Vkingsson
Italy
Plinio Conte
Caterina Fortuna
Francesca Granata
Japan
Kenji Kagawa
Shinji Hiruma
Toshihide Kitakado
Tomio Miyashita
Akiko Muramoto
Takaaki Sakamoto
Akima Umezawa
Korea, Republic of
Du Hae An
Yong-Rock An
Mexico
Yolanda Alaniz
Netherlands
Peter Bos
Monaco
Frederic Briand
New Zealand
Gerard van Bohemen
Karena Lyons
Norway
le David Stenseth
Einar Tallaksen
Hild Ynnesdal
Palau, Republic of
Vic Uherbelau
Panama
Tomas Guardia
Russian Federation
Valentin Ilyashenko
Olga Etylina
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the
grenadines
Raymond Ryan
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Spain
Carmen Asencio
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
Switzerland
Martin Krebs
UK
Nigel Gooding
Nicola Clarke
James Gray
Jenny Lonsdale
Anju Sharda
Mark Simmonds
Jolon Thomson
USA
Melissa Andersen
Keith Benes
Robert Brownell
Doug DeMaster
Roger Eckert
Michael Gosliner
Taryn Kiekow
Lisa Phelps
Allison Reed
Ryan Wulff
Scientific committee
Chair
Debra Palka
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Cherry Allison
Sandra Holdsworth
David Mattila
129
Appendix 2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
IWC/64/F&A
1
Provisional Agenda
2
List of Documents
3
Intersessional Correspondence Group on Strengthening IWC Financing
4
Submission to the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Strengthening IWC Financing regarding segmented
financial reporting (submitted by the Secretariat)
5
Elections to the Advisory Committee (submitted by the Secretariat)
6
Overview of the work of the Technical Adviser assigned to the Secretariat in order to assist with reducing conflicts
between cetaceans and marine resource users: October-May 2012
7
Arrangements for next meetings
8
Letter from Uruguay (submitted by the Secretariat)
9
New IWC website (submitted by the Secretariat)
10
Secretarys Report on the Collection of Financial Contributions for 2011-2012 (submitted by the Secretariat)
11
Reducing the costs of IWC meetings (submitted by the Secretariat)
12
Report of the Budgetary Sub-committee
13
Quorum and minimum number of countries which could make a decision (case study information from IWC/63)
(submitted by Japan)
Commission Documents
IWC/64/
Rep1 Report of the Scientific Committee [Extract]
5
Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2011
6
Financial Statements 2011-2012
7
Draft budget options for the single financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, and for the two year period 2012-2014 in case
of a move to biennial meetings (Secretariat)
Appendix 3
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introductory items
1.2 Appointment of Rapporteurs
Adoption of Agenda
Administrative matters
3.1 Annual Meeting Arrangements and Procedures
3.1.2 Report of the Intersessional Group on
Quorum
3.1.3 Report of the Intersessional Group on
Biennial Meetings and Establishment of a
Bureau
3.2 Website
3.2.1 Maintenance and expansion
3.2.2 Translation
3.3 Report of the Working Group on Providing
Options to Governments with Limited Means to
Participate in the Commissions Work
3.4 Review of the work of the technical adviser
Operational effectiveness
Cost-saving measures
Formula for calculating contributions and related
matters
Report of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on
Strengthening IWC Financing
Financial statements, budgets and other matters
addressed by the Budgetary Sub-committee
8.1 Review of the Provisional Financial Statement

2011/2012
8.1.2 Secretarys report on the collection of
financial contributions
8.2 Consideration of future budgets
8.2.2 F&A Committee discussions and recommendations
8.3 Changes to the timing of the Commissions
financial year in light of the decision to separate
meetings of the Scientific Committee and
Commission
8.4 Budgetary Sub-committee operations
9. Date and place of forthcoming meetings
10. Adoption of Report
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Finance and Administration Committee shall advise the
Commission on expenditure, budgets, scale of contributions,
Financial Regulations, staff questions, and other such
matters as the Commission may refer to it from time to time
(Rules of Procedure, Rule M.8).
ADMISSION OF OBSERVERS
Rule of Procedure C.2
Observers accredited in accordance with Rule [of Procedure]
C.1.(a) and (b) are admitted to all meetings of the Commission
and Technical Committee, and to any meetings of subsidiary
groups of the Commission and Technical Committee, except
the Commissioners-only meetings and the meetings of the
130
Appendix 4
Draft changes to the IWCs Rules of Procedure
Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations

As amended by the Commission at its 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, and with proposed changes to establish a
Bureau and move to biennial Commission meetings
Rules of Procedure.XXX
FINANCIAL REGULATIONs..XXX
RULES OF DEBATE.XXX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE..XXX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE..XXX
Rules of Procedure
A. Representation
1. A Government party to the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 (hereafter referred to
as the Convention) shall have the right to appoint one
Commissioner and shall furnish the Secretary of the
Commission with the name of its Commissioner and
his/her designation and notify the Secretary promptly
of any changes in the appointment. The Secretary shall
inform other Commissioners of such appointment.
2. In addition to the Commissioner, each Contracting
Government is invited to establish an additional means
of communication between the Chair and Secretary of
the Commission and that Government by designating
an Alternate Commissioner or by creating a focal or
contact point (which could be an e-mail address). The
details shall be communicated to the Secretary through
recognised diplomatic channels. Contact details of the
Commissioner, Alternate Commissioner or the focal or
contact point shall also be posted on the Commissions
public web site.
B. Meetings
1. The Commission shall hold a regular Annual Biennial
Meeting in such place as the Commission may
determine. Any Contracting Government desiring to
extend an invitation to the Commission to meet in that
country shall give formal notice two years in advance.
A formal offer should include:
(a) which meetings it covers, i.e. Scientific Committee,
Commission sub-groups, Annual Biennial
Commission meeting;
(b) a proposed time window within which the meeting
will take place; and
(c) a timetable for finalising details of the exact timing
and location of the meeting.
Attendance by a majority of the members of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum. Special
Meetings of the Commission may be called at the
direction of the Chair after consultation with the
Contracting Governments and Commissioners.
2. Before the end of each Annual Biennial Meeting,

the Commission shall decide on: (1) the length of
the Annual next Biennial Commission Meeting and
associated meetings the following year; and (2) which
of the Commissions sub-groups need to meet. Other
than the Scientific Committees annual meetings,
the normal practice of the Commission is to hold
committee and subsidiary body meetings prior to the
meeting of the Commission. This does not preclude
the intersessional work of subsidiary bodies from
continuing.
C. Observers
1. (a) Any Government not a party to the Convention
or any intergovernmental organisation may be
represented at meetings of the Commission by an
observer or observers, if such non-party government
or intergovernmental organisation has previously
attended any meeting of the Commission, or if it
submits its request in writing to the Commission
60 days prior to the start of the meeting, or if the
Commission issues an invitation to attend.
(b) Any non-governmental organisation which
expresses an interest in matters covered by the
Convention, may be accredited as an observer.
Requests for accreditation must be submitted in
writing to the Commission 60 days prior to the
start of the meeting and the Commission may issue
an invitation with respect to such request. Such
submissions shall include the standard application
form for non-governmental organisations which
will be provided by the Secretariat. These
applications shall remain available for review by
Contracting Governments.
Once a non-governmental organisation has been
accredited through the application process above,
it will remain accredited until the Commission
decides otherwise.
Observers from each non-governmental
organisation will be allowed seating in the meeting.
2.
However, seating limitations may require that the

number of observers from each non-governmental
organisation be limited. The Secretariat will notify
accredited non-governmental organisations of any
seating limitations in advance of the meeting.
(c) The Commission shall levy a registration fee
and determine rules of conduct, and may define
other conditions for the attendance of observers
accredited in accordance with Rule C.1.(a) and (b).
The registration fee will be treated as an annual
fee covering cover attendance at the Annual
Biennial Commission Meeting to which it relates
and any other meeting of the Commission or its
subsidiary groups as provided in Rule C.2 in the
interval before the next Biennial Commission
Meeting Annual Meeting.
Observers accredited in accordance with Rule C.1.(a)
and (b) are admitted to all meetings of the Commission
and the Technical Committee, and to any meetings of
subsidiary groups of the Commission and the Technical
Committee, except the Commissioners-only meetings,
Meetings of the Bureau and the meetings of the
D. Credentials
1. (a) The names of all representatives of member
and non-member governments and observer
organisations to any meeting of the Commission or
committees, as specified in the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission, Technical and Scientific
Committees, shall be notified to the Secretary in
writing before their participation and/or attendance
at each meeting. For member governments, the
notification shall indicate the Commissioner, his/
her alternate(s) and advisers, and the head of the
national delegation to the Scientific Committee and
any alternate(s) as appropriate.
The written notification shall be made by
governments or the heads of organisations as the
case may be. In this context, governments means
the Head of State, the Head of Government, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs (including: on behalf
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Minister
responsible for whaling or whale conservation
(including: on behalf of this Minister), the Head of
the Diplomatic Mission accredited to the seat of the
Commission or to the host country of the meeting
in question, or the Commissioner appointed under
Rule A.1.
(b) Credentials for a Commissioner appointed for the
duration of a meeting must be issued as in D.1(a).
Thereafter, until the end of the meeting in question,
that Commissioner assumes all the powers of a
Commissioner appointed under A.1., including that
of issuing credentials for his/her delegation.
(c) In the case of members of delegations who will
attend the Annual Biennial Commission Meeting
and its associated meetings, the notification may be
made en bloc by submitting a list of the members
who will attend any of these meetings.
(d) The Secretary, or his/her representative, shall report
on the received notifications at the beginning of a
meeting.
131
(e) In case of any doubt as to the authenticity of

notification or in case of apparent delay in their
delivery, the Chair of the meeting shall convene an
ad hoc group of no more than one representative
from any Contracting Government present to decide
upon the question of participation in the meeting.
E. Decision-making
A decision of the Commission taken at a meeting, whether
by consensus or by vote, is not deemed adopted until the text
has either been provided to all Members of the Commission,
or presented to them by electronic means, and then
approved by the Commission. The text will also be made
simultaneously available to all other accredited participants.
The text shall normally be distributed or presented in
English and conveyed in the other working languages by
oral interpretation. This rule applies both to decisions of
the kinds specified in Rule J, and to other decisions of the
Commission, except those relating only to the conduct of
the current meeting. If the text of a proposed decision is
amended, the revised text shall be distributed or presented
in accordance with this rule. The authentic text of any such
decision shall be the English version.
The Commission shall make every effort to reach its
decisions by consensus. If all efforts to reach consensus have
been exhausted and no agreement reached, the following
Rules of Procedure shall apply:
1. Each Commissioner shall have the right to vote at
Plenary Meetings of the Commission and in his/
her absence his/her deputy or alternate shall have
such right. Experts and advisers may address Plenary
Meetings of the Commission but shall not be entitled to
vote. They may vote at the meetings of any committee
to which they have been appointed, provided that when
such vote is taken, representatives of any Contracting
Government shall only exercise one vote.
2. (a) The right to vote of representatives of any
Contracting Government shall be suspended
automatically when the annual payment of a
Contracting Government including any interest due
has not been received by the Commission by the
earliest of these dates:
3 months following the due date prescribed in
Regulation E.2 of the Financial Regulations; or
the day before the first day of the next Annual
Biennial or Special Meeting of the Commission
if such a meeting is held within 3 months
following the due date; or
n the case of a vote by postal or other means, the
date upon which votes must be received if this
falls within 3 months following the due date.
This suspension of voting rights applies until
payment is received by the Commission.
(b) The Commissioner of a new Contracting
Government shall not exercise the right to vote
either at meetings or by postal or other means: (i)
until 30 days after the date of adherence, although
they may participate fully in discussions of the
Commission; and (ii) unless the Commission has
received the Governments financial contribution or
part contribution for the year prescribed in Financial
Regulation E.3. the day before the first day of the
Annual Biennial or Special Meeting concerned.
132
3.
4.
(a) Where a vote is taken on any matter before the

Commission, a simple majority of those casting
an affirmative or negative vote shall be decisive,
except that a three-fourths majority of those casting
an affirmative or negative vote shall be required for
action in pursuance of Article V of the Convention.
(b) Action in pursuance of Article V shall contain
the text of the regulations proposed to amend the
Schedule. A proposal that does not contain such
regulatory text does not constitute an amendment to
the Schedule and therefore requires only a simple
majority vote. A proposal that does not contain such
regulatory text to revise the Schedule but would
commit the Commission to amend the Schedule in
the future can neither be put to a vote nor adopted.
(c) At meetings of committees appointed by the
Commission, a simple majority of those casting an
affirmative or negative vote shall also be decisive.
The committee shall report to the Commission if the
decision has been arrived at as a result of the vote.
(d) Votes shall be taken by show of hands, or by roll call,
as in the opinion of the Chair, appears to be most
suitable. The election of the Chair, Vice-Chair, the
appointment of the Secretary of the Commission,
and the selection of IWC Annual Biennial Meeting
venues shall, upon request by a Commissioner, all
proceed by secret ballot.
Between meetings of the Commission or in the case
of emergency, a vote of the Commissioners may be
taken by post, or other means of communication in
which case the necessary simple, or where required
three-fourths majority, shall be of the total number of
Contracting Governments whose right to vote has not
been suspended under paragraph 2.
F. Chair
1. The Chair of the Commission shall be elected from time
to time from among the Commissioners and shall take
office at the conclusion of the Annual Biennial Meeting
at which he/she is elected. The Chair shall serve for a
period of three four years and shall not be eligible for
re-election as Chair until a further period of three four
years has elapsed. The Chair shall, however, remain in
office until a successor is elected.
2. The duties of the Chair shall be:
(a) to preside at all meetings of the Commission and
Bureau;
(b) to decide all questions of order raised at meetings
of the Commission, subject to the right of any
Commissioner to appeal against any ruling of the
Chair.
(c) to call for votes and to announce the result of the
vote to the Commission;
(d) to develop, with appropriate consultation, draft
agenda for meetings of the Commission and Bureau.
(i) for Annual Biennial Meetings:
in consultation with the Secretary, Secretary
and the Bureau to develop a draft agenda
based on decisions and recommendations
made at the previous Annual Biennial
Meeting for circulation to all Contracting
Governments and Commissioners for
review and comment not less than 100 days
in advance of the meeting.
on the basis of comments and proposals
received from Contracting Governments
and Commissioners under (d)(i) above, to
develop with the Secretary, an annotated
provisional agenda for circulation to all

Contracting Governments not less than 60 days
in advance of the meeting;
(ii) for Special Meetings, the two-stage procedure
described in (i) above will be followed
whenever practicable, recognising that Rule of
Procedure J.1 still applies with respect to any
item of business involving amendment of the
Schedule or recommendations under Article VI
of the Convention.
(e) to sign, on behalf of the Commission, a report
of the proceedings of each annual biennial or
other meeting of the Commission and Bureau,
for transmission to Contracting Governments and
others concerned as an authoritative record of what
transpired;
(f) generally, to make such decisions and give such
directions to the Secretary as will ensure, especially
in the interval between the meetings of the
Commission, that the business of the Commission
is carried out efficiently and in accordance with its
decision.
G. Vice-Chair
1. The Vice-Chair of the Commission shall be elected
from time to time from among the Commissioners
and shall preside at meetings of the Commission and
Bureau, or between them, in the absence or in the event
of the Chair being unable to act. He/she shall on those
occasions exercise the powers and duties prescribed
for the Chair. The Vice-Chair shall be elected for a
period of three four years and shall not be eligible for
re-election as Vice-Chair until a further period of three
four years has elapsed. He/she shall, however, remain
in office until a successor is elected.
H. Secretary
1. The Commission shall appoint a Secretary and
shall designate staff positions to be filled through
appointments made by the Secretary. The Commission
shall fix the terms of employment, rate of remuneration
including tax assessment and superannuation and
travelling expenses for the members of the Secretariat.
2. The Secretary is the executive officer of the Commission
and shall:
(a) be responsible to the Commission for the control
and supervision of the staff and management of its
office and for the receipt and disbursement of all
monies received by the Commission;
(b) make arrangements for all meetings of the
Commission, and its committees and the Bureau
and provide necessary secretarial assistance;
(c) prepare and submit to the Chair a draft of the
Commissions budget for each two year period
and shall subsequently submit the budget to all
Contracting Governments and Commissioners
as early as possible before the Annual Biennial
Meeting;
(d) despatch by the most expeditious means available:
(i) a draft agenda for the Annual Biennial
Commission Meeting to all Contracting
Governments and Commissioners 100days
in advance of the meeting for comment and
any additions with annotations they wish to
propose;
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(ii) an annotated provisional agenda to all

not less than 60 days in advance of the Annual
Biennial Commission Meeting. Included in the
annotations should be a brief description of each
item, and in so far as possible, documentation
relevant to agenda items should be referred to
in the annotation and sent to member nations at
the earliest possible date;
receive, tabulate and publish notifications and
other information required by the Convention in
such form and manner as may be prescribed by the
Commission;
perform such other functions as may be assigned to
him/her by the Commission or its Chair;
where appropriate, provide copies or availability
to a copy of reports of the Commission including
reports of Observers under the International
Observer Scheme, upon request after such reports
have been considered by the Commission.
maintain the Commissions public web site, which
shall be continuously accessible to the extent
possible subject to maintenance requirements and
technical constraints.
I. Chair of Scientific Committee

1. The Chair of the Scientific Committee may attend
meetings of the Commission and Technical Committee
in an ex officio capacity without vote, at the invitation
of the Chair of the Commission or Technical Committee
respectively in order to represent the views of the
J. Schedule amendments, recommendations under
Article VI and Resolutions
1. No item of business which involves amendment of the
Schedule to the Convention, recommendations under
Article VI of the Convention, or Resolutions of the
Commission, shall be the subject of decisive action
by the Commission unless the full draft text has been
circulated to the Commissioners at least 60 days in
advance of the meeting at which the matter is to be
discussed.
2. Notwithstanding the advance notice requirements for
draft Resolutions in Rule J.1, at the recommendation of
the Chair in consultation with the Advisory Committee
Bureau, the Commission may decide to consider urgent
draft Resolutions which arise after the 60 day deadline
where there have been important developments that
warrant action in the Commission. The full draft
text of any such Resolution must be circulated to all
Commissioners prior to the opening of the meeting at
which the draft Resolution is to be considered.
3. Notwithstanding Rules J.1 and J.2, the Commission
may adopt Resolutions on any matter that may arise
during a meeting only when consensus is achieved.
K. Financial
1. The financial year of the Commission shall be from 1st
September to 31st August.
2. Any request to Contracting Governments for financial
contributions shall be accompanied by a statement of
the Commissions expenditure for the appropriate year,
actual or estimated.
3. Annual payments and other financial contributions by
Contracting Governments shall be made payable to the
Commission and shall be in pounds sterling.
133
L. Offices
1. The seat of the Commission shall be located in the
United Kingdom.
M. Committees
1. The Commission shall establish a Scientific Committee,
a Technical Committee and a Finance and Administration
Committee. Commissioners shall notify their desire to
be represented on the Scientific, Technical and Finance
and Administration Committees 28 days prior to the
meetings, and shall designate the approximate size of
their delegations.
2. The Chair may constitute such ad hoc committees
as may be necessary from time to time, with similar
arrangements for notification of the numbers of
participants as in paragraph 1 above where appropriate.
Each committee shall elect its Chair. The Secretary
shall furnish appropriate secretarial services to each
committee.
3. Sub-committees and working groups may be designated
by the Commission to consider technical issues as
appropriate, and each will report to the Technical
Committee or the plenary session of the Commission as
the Commission may decide.
4. (a) The Scientific Committee shall review the current
scientific and statistical information with respect
to whales and whaling, shall review current
scientific research programmes of Governments,
other international organisations or of private
organisations, shall review the scientific permits
and scientific programmes for which Contracting
Governments plan to issue scientific permits,
shall consider such additional matters as may be
referred to it by the Commission or by the Chair
of the Commission, and shall submit reports and
recommendations to the Commission.
(b) Any ad hoc committee, sub-committee or working
group established to provide scientific advice shall
report to the Scientific Committee, which shall
review the report of such committee, sub-committee
or working group, and, as appropriate, make its own
recommendations on the subject matter.
5. The report of the Scientific Committee should be
completed and made available to all Commissioners
and posted on the Commissions public web site by
the opening date of the Annual Biennial Commission
Meeting or within 14 days of the conclusion of the
Scientific Committee meeting, whichever is the sooner.
6. The Secretary shall be an ex officio member of the
Scientific Committee without vote.
7. The Technical Committee shall, as directed by the
Commission or the Chair of the Commission, prepare
reports and make recommendations on:
(a) Management principles, categories, criteria and
definitions, taking into account the recommendations
of the Scientific Committee, as a means of helping
the Commission to deal with management issues as
they arise;
(b) technical and practical options for implementation
of conservation measures based on Scientific
Committee advice;
(c) the implementation of decisions taken by the
Commission through resolutions and through
Schedule provisions;
(d) Commission agenda items assigned to it;
(e) any other matters.
134
8.
9.
The Finance and Administration Committee shall

advise the Commission on expenditure, budgets, scale
of contributions, financial regulations, staff questions,
and such other matters as the Commission may refer to
it from time to time.
The Commission shall establish an Advisory
Committee. This Committee shall comprise the Chair,
Vice-Chair, Chair of the Finance and Administration
Committee, Secretary and two Commissioners to
broadly represent the interests within the IWC forum.
The appointment of the Commissioners shall be for
two years on alternative years.
The role of the Committee shall be to assist and
advise the Secretariat on administrative matters
upon request by the Secretariat or agreement in the
Commission. The Committee is not a decision-making
forum and shall not deal with policy matters or
administrative matters that are within the scope of the
Finance and Administration Committee other than
making recommendations to this Committee.
The Commission shall establish a Bureau. It shall be
comprised of the Chair of the Commission, the ViceChair of the Commission, the Chair of the Finance and
Administration Committee, and four commissioners
representing a range of views, including regional
interests. The host government for the next meeting of
the Commission will serve in an ex officio capacity. The
Secretary will support the meeting. The appointment
of Commissioners shall be for two years.
The Chair of the Commission will serve as the
Chair of the Bureau and may call upon Chairs of
the Commissions subsidiary bodies to participate in
Bureau discussions, as appropriate.
The Bureau will support the work of the
Commission by providing advice to the Chair of the
Commission and the Secretariat on work ongoing
under the Convention, especially at times when the
Commission is not in session. To this end, the Bureau
will:
Provide advice to the Chair and Secretariat on
Assist and advise the Secretariat on administrative
Commission:
Assist in the preparation for meetings of the
Commission and Subsidiary Bodies;
Review progress of work of the Committees;
Provide support to the Chair during meetings
of the Commission, as may be requested by the
Chair.
The Bureaus mandate is to assist with process
management. It is not a decision-making forum, and
shall not deal with substantive or policy matters under
the Convention. The Bureau may consider issues
related to financial or administrative tasks within the
scope of the Finance and Administration Committee,
but only in the context of making recommendations to
that Committee.
N. Languages of the Commission

1. English shall be the official language of the
Commission. English, French and Spanish shall be the
working languages of the Commission. Commissioners
may speak in any other language, if desired, it being
understood that Commissioners doing so will provide
their own interpreters. All official publications and
communications of the Commission shall be in English.

Agreed publications shall be available in English,
French and Spanish1.
O. Records of Meetings
1. The proceedings of the meetings of the Commission,
and those of its committees and the Bureau shall be
recorded in summary form.
2. The text of each Commission decision adopted at a
meeting in accordance with Rule E, or by post, shall
be placed on the Commissions public web site in all
working languages within 14 days of the conclusion of
the meeting or adoption of the decision by post.
P. Reports and communications
1. Commissioners should arrange for reports on the subject
of whaling published in their own countries to be sent to
the Commission for record purposes.
2. The Chairs Report of the most recent Annual
Biennial Commission Meeting shall be posted on
the Commissions public web site in English within
two months of the end of the meeting and in the other
working languages as soon as possible thereafter. It
shall be published in the Annual Report of the year just
completed.
3. All individual and circular communications from the
Chair or Secretary to Contracting Governments shall
be sent to both the Commissioner appointed under
Rule A.1. and to his/her Alternate designated or to the
focal or contact point created under Rule A.2. They
should also be sent to all accredited intergovernmental
observers. All circular communications from the
be posted on the Commissions public web site on
despatch, unless the Chair, after consulting with the
Advisory Committee Bureau, deems that a confidential
communication is warranted (applicable only for staff
issues, infraction cases and information provided by
contracting Governments with a request that it remain
confidential), in which case the communication should
be sent to the Contracting Governments alone. A
list of dates and subject titles of such confidential
communications shall be presented to the next Annual
Biennial Meeting and to the Bureau in years when the
Commission does not meet.
Q. Commission Documents
1. Reports of meetings of all committees, subcommittees and working groups of the Commission are
confidential (i.e. reporting of discussions, conclusions
and recommendations made during a meeting is
prohibited) until the opening plenary session of the
Commission meeting to which they are submitted, or
in the case of intersessional meetings, until after they
have been dispatched by the Secretary to Contracting
Governments and Commissioners. This applies
equally to member governments and observers. Such
reports, with the exception of the report of the Finance
and Administration Committee, shall be distributed
1
As agreed at IWC/59 in Anchorage in 2007: i.e. simultaneous interpretation in French and Spanish in IWC Plenary and private meetings of
Commissioners, and translation into French and Spanish of: (1) Resolutions
and Schedule amendments; (2) the Chairs summary reports of annual
biennial meetings and meetings of the Bureau; (3) Annotated Provisional
Agendas; and (4) summaries of the Scientific Committee and working
group reports. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2007: 56-57.
to Commissioners, Contracting Governments and

accredited observers at the same time. Procedures
applying to the Scientific Committee are contained in
its Rules of Procedure E.5.(a) and E.5.(b).
2. Any document submitted to the Commission
for distribution to Commissioners, Contracting
Governments or members of the Scientific Committee
is considered to be in the public domain unless it is
designated by the author or government submitting it
to be restricted2. Such restriction is automatically lifted
when the report of the meeting to which it is submitted
becomes publicly available under 1. above.
3. Observers admitted under Rule of Procedure C.1.(a)
and (b) may submit Opening Statements which will be
included in the official documentation of the Annual
Biennial or other Meeting concerned. They shall be
presented in the format and the quantities determined
by the Secretariat for meeting documentation.
135
The content of the Opening Statements shall be relevant

to matters under consideration by the Commission, and
shall be in the form of views and comments made to
the Commission in general rather than directed to any
individual or group of Contracting Governments.3
4. All meeting documents shall be included in the
Commissions archives in the form in which they were
considered at the meeting. All such documents dating
from 2011 onwards, and also earlier years where feasible,
shall be archived on the Commissions public web site in
an accessible fashion by year and category of document.
R. Amendment of Rules
1. These Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Debate may
be amended from time to time by a simple majority
of the Commissioners voting, but the full draft text
of any proposed amendment shall be circulated to
the Commissioners at least 60 days in advance of the
meeting at which the matter is to be discussed.
Financial Regulations
A. Applicability
1. These regulations shall govern the financial
administration of the International Whaling
Commission.
2. They shall become effective as from the date decided by
the Commission and shall be read with and in addition
to the Rules of Procedure. They may be amended in the
same way as provided under Rule R.1 of the Rules of
Procedure in respect of those Rules.
3. In case of doubt as to the interpretation and application
of any of these regulations, the Chair is authorised to
give a ruling.
C. General Financial Arrangements

1. There shall be established a Research Fund and a General
Fund, and a Voluntary Fund for Small Cetaceans.
(a) The Research Fund shall be credited with
voluntary contributions and any such monies as the
Commission may allocate for research and scientific
investigation and charged with specific expenditure
of this nature.
(b) The General Fund shall, subject to the establishment
of any other funds that the Commission may
determine, be credited or charged with all other
income and expenditure.
(c) The details of the Voluntary Fund for Small
Cetaceans are given in Appendix 1.
The General Fund shall be credited or debited with the
balance on the Commissions Income and Expenditure
Account at the end of each financial year.
2. Subject to the restrictions and limitations of the following
paragraphs, the Commission may accept funds from
outside the regular contributions of Contracting
Governments.
(a) The Commission may accept such funds to carry

out programmes or activities decided upon by the
Commission and/or to advance programmes and
activities which are consistent with the objectives
and provisions of the Convention.
(b) The Commission shall not accept external funds
from any of the following:
(i) Sources that are known, through evidence
available to the Commission, to have been
involved in illegal activities, or activities
contrary to the provisions of the Convention;
(ii) Individual companies directly involved in legal
commercial whaling under the Convention;
(iii) Organisations which have deliberately brought
the Commission into public disrepute.
3. Monies in any of the Funds that are not expected to be
required for disbursement within a reasonable period
may be invested in appropriate Government or similar
loans by the Secretary in consultation with the Chair.
4. The Secretary shall:
(a) establish detailed financial procedures and
accounting records as are necessary to ensure
effective financial administration and control and
the exercise of economy;
(b) deposit and maintain the funds of the Commission
in an account in the name of the Commission in a
bank to be approved by the Chair;
(c) cause all payments to be made on the basis of
supporting vouchers and other documents which
ensure that the services or goods have been received,
and that payment has not previously been made;
(d) designate the officers of the Secretariat who
may receive monies, incur obligations and make
payments on behalf of the Commission;
(e) authorise the writing off of losses of cash, stores and
other assets and submit a statement of such amounts
written off to the Commission and the auditors with
the annual accounts.
2
This does not prevent Contracting Governments from consulting as
they see fit on such documents providing confidentiality is maintained as
described in Rule of Procedure Q.1.
3
[There is no intention that the Secretariat should conduct advance or exante reviews of such statements.]
B. Financial Year
September to 31st August (Rules of Procedure, Rule
K.1).
136
5. T
he accounts of the Commission shall be audited
annually by a firm of qualified accountants selected
by the Commission. The auditors shall certify that
the financial statements are in accord with the books
and records of the Commission, that the financial
transactions reflected in them have been in accordance
with the rules and regulations and that the monies on
deposit and in hand have been verified. The most recent
audited financial statements and the audit report shall
be submitted to the Annual Biennial Meeting or to the
Bureau in years when the Commission does not meet
and posted on the Commissions public website by the
opening of the Annual Biennial Meeting or Meeting
of the Bureau.
D. Yearly Statements
1. At each Annual Biennial Meeting, there shall be laid
before the Commission two financial statements:
(a) a provisional statement dealing with the actual and
estimated expenditure and income in respect of the
current financial year;
(b) the budget estimate of expenditure and income for
the ensuing two year including the estimated amount
of the individual annual payment to be requested
of each Contracting Government for each of the
ensuing two years.
(c) in years when no Biennial Commission Meeting
is held the provisional statement for the current
financial year identified in Regulation D.1.(a)
shall be laid before the Meeting of the Bureau.
(d) in years when no Biennial Commission Meeting is
held the Bureau shall review the second half of the
two year budget.
Expenditure and income shall be shown under appropriate
sub-heads accompanied by such explanations as the
Commission may determine.
2. The two financial statements identified in Regulation
D.1 shall be despatched by the most expeditious
means available to each Contracting Government and
each Commissioner not less than 60 days in advance
of the Annual Biennial Commission Meeting. They
shall require the Commissions approval after having
been referred to the Finance and Administration
Committee for consideration and recommendations. A
copy of the final accounts for each year shall be sent
to all Contracting Governments after they have been
audited. In years when the Commission does not meet,
the provisional financial statement for the current
year shall be made available to each Contracting
Government and each Commissioner not less than 60
days in advance of the Meeting of the Bureau.
3. Supplementary estimates may be submitted to the
Commission, as and when may be deemed necessary,
in a form consistent with the Annual Estimates. Any
supplementary estimate shall require the approval of
the Commission after being referred to the Finance
and Administration Committee for consideration and
recommendation.
E. Contributions
1. As soon as the Commission has approved the budget for
any year, the Secretary shall send a copy thereof to each
Contracting Government (in compliance with Rules of
Procedure, Rule K.2), and shall request it to remit its
annual payment.
2. Payment shall be in pounds sterling, drafts being made
payable to the International Whaling Commission and
3.
4.
5.
shall be payable within 90 days of the said request

from the Secretary or by the following 28 February,
the due date whichever is the later. It shall be open to
any Contracting Government to postpone the payment
of any increased portion of the amount which shall
be payable in full by the following 31 August, which
then becomes the due date. Payment shall be by bank
transfer from an account belonging to the Contracting
Government or to a state institution of that Government.
New Contracting Governments whose adherence to
the Convention becomes effective during the first six
months of any financial year shall be liable to pay the
full amount of the annual payment for that year, but
only half that amount if their adherence falls within the
second half of the financial year. The due date for the
first payment by new Contracting Governments shall
be defined as 6 months from the date of adherence to
the Convention or before the first day of any Annual
or Special Meeting of the Commission or Bureau in
which it participates, whichever is the earlier.

Subsequent annual payments shall be paid in
accordance with Financial Regulation E.2.
The Secretary shall report at each Annual Biennial
Meeting and Meeting of the Bureau the position as
regards the collection of annual payments. The report
shall also be sent to all Commissioners including
those who are not members of the Bureau before the
beginning of the Bureau Meeting in the year when the
For the purpose of application of Rule of Procedure E.2,
payments of membership dues shall only count as having
been received by the Commission when the funds have
been credited to the Commissions account unless the
payment has been made and the Commission is satisfied
that the delay in receipt is due to circumstances beyond
the control of the Contracting Government.
F. Arrears of Contributions
1. If a Contracting Governments annual payments have not
been received by the Commission within 12 months of
the due date referred to under Regulation E.2 compound
interest shall be added on the anniversary of that day
and each subsequent anniversary thereafter at the rate
of 2% above the base rate quoted by the Commissions
bankers on the day. The interest, calculated to the
nearest pound, shall by payable in respect of complete
years and continue to be payable in respect of any
outstanding balance until such time as the amount in
arrears, including interest, is settled in full.
2. If a Contracting Governments annual payments,
including any interest due4, have not been received by
the Commission by the earliest of these dates:
3 months following the due date; or
the day before the first day of the next Annual
Biennial or Special Meeting of the Commission,
or Meeting of the Bureau if such a meeting is held
within 3 months following the due date; or,
in the case of a vote by postal or other means, the
date upon which votes must be received if this falls
within 3 months following the due date, the right
to vote of the Contracting Government concerned
shall be suspended as provided under Rule E.2 of
the Rules of Procedure.
3. Any interest paid by a Contracting Government to the
Commission in respect of late annual payments shall be
credited to the General Fund.
4. Any payment to the Commission by a Contracting

Government in arrears with annual payments shall be
used to pay off debts to the Commission, including
interest due, in the order in which they were incurred.
including any interest due, have not been received by
the Commission in respect of a period of 3 financial
years;
(a) no further annual contribution will be charged;
(b) interest will continue to be applied annually in
accordance with Financial Regulation F.1.;
(c) the provisions of this Regulation apply to the
Contracting Government for as long as the
provisions of Financial Regulations F.1. and F.2.
remain in effect for that Government;
(d) the Contracting Government concerned will
be entitled to attend Commission Meetings on
payment of a fee per delegate at the same level as
Non-Member Government observers;
(e) the provisions of this Regulation and of Financial
Regulations F.1. and F.2. will cease to have effect
for a Contracting Government if it makes a payment
of 2 years outstanding contributions and provides
an undertaking to pay the balance of arrears and the
interest within a further 2 years;
(f) interest applied to arrears in accordance with this
Regulation will accrue indefinitely except that, if
a Government withdraws from the Convention,
no further charges shall accrue after the date upon
which the withdrawal takes effect.
6. U
nless the Commission decides otherwise, a Government
which adheres to the Convention without having paid
to the Commission any financial obligations incurred
prior to its adherence shall, with effect from the date
of adherence, be subject to all the penalties prescribed
by the Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations
relating to arrears of financial contributions and interest
thereon. The penalties shall remain in force until the
arrears, including any newly-charged interest, have
been paid in full.
A short-term concession of up to 500 pounds sterling will be given to any

Contracting Government to take account of remittances sent to cover annual
payments, including any interest due, that fall short of the balance owing by
up to that amount. This concession is to allow for variations in bank charges
and exchange rate that might otherwise reduce the value of the remittance
to a lower value than intended in pounds sterling and so leave a Contracting
Government with a balance of annual payments, including any interest
due outstanding. This short term concession will enable a Contracting
Government to maintain its right to vote. Any Contracting Government
with a balance outstanding above 500 pounds sterling will not be entitled
to the short-term concessionand its right to vote shall be suspended. The
shortfall of up to 500 pounds sterling allowed by the concession shall then
be carried forward to the next financial year as part of the balance of annual
payments, including any interest due to the Commission.
137
Appendix 1
VOLUNTARY FUND FOR SMALL CETACEANS
Purpose
The Commission decided at its 46th Annual Meeting in 1994 to
establish an IWC voluntary fund to allow for the participation
from developing countries in future small cetacean work
and requested the Secretary to make arrangements for the
creation of such a fund whereby contributions in cash and
in kind can be registered and utilised by the Commission.
Contributions
The Commission has called on Contracting Governments
and non-contracting Governments, intergovernmental
organisations and other entities as appropriate, in particular
those most interested in scientific research on small cetaceans,
to contribute to the IWC voluntary fund for small cetaceans.
Acceptance of contributions from entities other than
Governments will be subject to the Commissions procedures
for voluntary contributions. Where funds or support in kind
are to be made available through the Voluntary Fund, the
donation will registered and administered by the Secretariat
in accordance with Commission procedures.
The Secretariat will notify all members of the Commission
on receipt of such voluntary contributions.
Where expenditure is incurred using these voluntary funds
the Secretariat will inform the donors of their utilisation.
Distribution of Funds
1. Recognising that there are differences of view on the
legal competence of the Commission in relation to
small cetaceans, but aware of the need to promote the
development of increased participation by developing
countries, the following primary forms of disbursement
will be supported in accordance with the purpose of the
Voluntary Fund:
(a) provision of support for attendance of invited
participants at meetings of the Scientific Committee;
(b) provision of support for research in areas, species
or populations or research methodology in small
cetacean work identified as of direct interest or
priority in the advice provided by the Scientific
Committee to the Commission;
(c) other small cetacean work in developing
countries that may be identified from time to
time by the Commission and in consultation with
intergovernmental agencies as requiring, or likely
to benefit from support through the Fund.
2. Where expenditure is proposed in support of invited
participants, the following will apply:
(a) invited participants will be selected through
consultation between the Chair of the Scientific
Committee, the Convenor of the appropriate subcommittee and the Secretary;
(b) the government of the country where the scientists
work will be advised of the invitation and asked if it
can provide financial support.
3. Where expenditure involves research activity, the
following will apply:
(a) the normal procedures for review of proposals and
recommendations by the Scientific Committee will
be followed;
(b) appropriate procedures for reporting of progress and
outcomes will be applied and the work reviewed;
(c) the Secretariat shall solicit the involvement, as
appropriate, of governments in the regions where
the research activity is undertaken.
138
Rules of Debate
A. Right to speak
1. The Chair shall call upon speakers in the order in which
they signify their desire to speak.
2. A Commissioner or Observer may speak only if called
upon by the Chair, who may call a speaker to order if
his/her remarks are not relevant to the subject under
discussion.
3. A speaker shall not be interrupted except on a point of
order. He/she may, however, with the permission of the
Chair, give way during his/her speech to allow any other
Commissioner to request elucidation on a particular
point in that speech.
4. The Chair of a committee or working group may be
accorded precedence for the purpose of explaining the
conclusion arrived at by his/her committee or group.
B. Submission of Motions
1. Proposals and amendments shall normally be
introduced in writing in the working language of the
meeting and shall be submitted to the Secretariat which
shall circulate copies to all delegations in the session.
As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed at any
plenary session unless copies of it have been circulated
to all delegations normally no later than 6pm, or earlier
if so determined by the Chair in consultation with
the Commissioners, on the day preceding the plenary
session. The presiding officer may, however, permit
the discussion and consideration of amendments, or
motions, as to procedure, even though such amendments,
or motions have not been circulated previously.
C. Procedural Motions
1. During the discussion of any matter, a Commissioner
may rise to a point of order, and the point of order shall
be immediately decided by the Chair in accordance
with these Rules of Procedure. A Commissioner may
appeal against any ruling of the Chair. The appeal shall
be immediately put to the vote and the question voted
upon shall be stated as: Shall the decision of the Chair
be overturned? The Chairs ruling shall stand unless
a majority of the Commissioners present and voting
otherwise decide. A Commissioner rising to a point
of order may not speak on the substance of the matter
under discussion.
2. The following motions shall have precedence in the
following order over all other proposals or motions
before the Commission:
(a) to adjourn the session;
(b) to adjourn the debate on the particular subject or
question under discussion;
(c) to close the debate on the particular subject or
question under discussion.
3. Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Chair may
suspend the meeting for a brief period at any time in
order to allow informal discussions aimed at reaching
consensus consistent with Rule E of the Rules of
Procedure.
D. Arrangements for Debate
1. The Commission may, in a proposal by the Chair or by
a Commissioner, limit the time to be allowed to each
speaker and the number of times the members of a

delegation may speak on any question. When the debate
is subject to such limits, and a speaker has spoken for
his allotted time, the Chair shall call him/her to order
without delay.
2. During the course of a debate the Chair may announce
the list of speakers, and with the consent of the
Commission, declare the list closed. The Chair may,
however, accord the right of reply to any Commissioner
if a speech delivered after he/she has declared the list
closed makes this desirable.
may move the adjournment of the debate on the
particular subject or question under discussion. In
addition to the proposer of the motion, a Commissioner
may speak in favour of, and two Commissioners may
speak against the motion, after which the motion shall
immediately be put to the vote. The Chair may limit the
time to be allowed to speakers under this rule.
4. A Commissioner may at any time move the closure of
the debate on the particular subject or question under
discussion, whether or not any other Commissioner has
signified the wish to speak. Permission to speak on the
motion for the closure of the debate shall be accorded
only to two Commissioners wishing to speak against
the motion, after which the motion shall immediately
be put to the vote. The Chair may limit the time to be
allowed to speakers under this rule.
E. Procedure for Voting on Motions and Amendments
1. A Commissioner may move that parts of a proposal
or of an amendment shall be voted on separately. If
objection is made to the request of such division, the
motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to
speak on the motion for division shall be accorded only
to two Commissioners wishing to speak in favour of,
and two Commissioners wishing to speak against, the
motion. If the motion for division is carried, those parts
of the proposal or amendments which are subsequently
approved shall be put to the vote as a whole. If all
operative parts of the proposal or of the amendment
have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall
be considered to have been rejected as a whole.
2. When the amendment is moved to a proposal, the
amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more
amendments are moved to a proposal, the Commission
shall first vote on the last amendment moved and then
on the next to last, and so on until all amendments have
been put to the vote. When, however, the adoption of one
amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another
amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to
the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted, the
amended proposal shall then be voted upon. A motion
is considered an amendment to a proposal if it merely
adds to, deletes from or revises part of that proposal.
3. If two or more proposals relate to the same question,
the Commission shall, unless it otherwise decides, vote
on the proposals in the order in which they have been
submitted. The Commission may, after voting on a
proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposal.
139
Rules of Procedure of the Technical Committee

A. Participation
1. Membership shall consist of those member nations that
elect to be represented on the Technical Committee.
Delegations shall consist of Commissioners, or their
nominees, who may be accompanied by technical
experts.
2. The Secretary of the Commission or a deputy shall be
an ex officio non-voting member of the Committee.
3. Observers may attend Committee meetings in
accordance with the Rules of the Commission.
B. Organisation
1. Normally the Vice-Chair of the Commission is the Chair
of the Technical Committee. Otherwise the Chair shall
be elected from among the members of the Committee.
2. A provisional agenda for the Technical Committee
and each sub-committee and working group shall be
prepared by the Technical Committee Chair with the
assistance of the Secretary. After agreement by the
Chair of the Commission they shall be distributed
to Commissioners 30 days in advance of the Annual
Biennial Meeting.
C. Meetings
1. The Annual Meeting of the Technical Committee
shall be held between the Scientific Committee and
Commission meetings with reasonable overlap of

meetings as appropriate to agenda requirements. Special
meetings may be held as agreed by the Commission or
the Chair of the Commission.
2. Rules of conduct for observers shall conform with rules
established by the Commission for meetings of all
committees and plenary sessions.
D. Reports
1. Reports and recommendations shall, as far as possible,
be developed on the basis of consensus. However,
if a consensus is not achievable, the committee,
sub-committee or working group shall report the
different views expressed. The Chair or any national
delegation may request a vote on any issue. Resulting
recommendations shall be based on a simple majority
of those nations casting an affirmative or negative vote.
2. Documents on which recommendations are based
should be available on demand immediately following
each committee, sub-committee or working group
meeting.
3. Technical papers produced for the Commission may
be reviewed by the Committee for publication by the
Commission.
Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee

Terms of reference
The Scientific Committee, established in accordance with the Commissions Rule of Procedure M.1, has the general terms of reference defined in Rule of
Procedure M.4.
In this regard, the DUTIES of the Scientific Committee, can be seen as a progression from the scientific investigation of whales and their environment,
leading to assessment of the status of the whale stocks and the impact of catches upon them, and then to provision of management advice on the regulation of
whaling. This can be defined in the following terms for the Scientific Committee to:
Encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organise studies and investigations related to whales and whaling [Convention Article IV.1(a)]
Collect and analyse statistical information concerning the current condition and trend of whale stocks and the effects of whaling activities on them [Article
IV.1 (b)]
Study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning methods of maintaining and increasing the population of whale stocks [Article IV.1 (c)]
Provide scientific findings on which amendments to the Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of the Convention and to provide for the
conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources [Article V.2 (a) and (b)]
Publish reports of its activities and findings [Article IV.2]
In addition, specific FUNCTIONS of the Scientific Committee are to:
Receive, review and comment on Special Permits issued for scientific research [Article VIII.3 and Schedule paragraph 30]
Review research programmes of Contracting Governments and other bodies [Rule of Procedure M.4]
SPECIFIC TOPICS of current concern to the Commission include:
Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:30]
Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43]
Assessment of stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling [Schedule paragraph 13(b)]
Development of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:42-3]
Effects of environmental change on cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49]
Scientific aspects of whale sanctuaries [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45:63]
Scientific aspects of small cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41]
Scientific aspects of whalewatching [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:49-50]
A. Membership and Observers

1. The Scientific Committee shall be composed of
scientists nominated by the Commissioner of each
Contracting Government which indicates that it wishes
to be represented on that Committee. Commissioners
shall identify the head of delegation and any alternate(s)
when making nominations to the Scientific Committee.
The Secretary of the Commission and relevant members
of the Secretariat shall be ex-officio non-voting members

of the Scientific Committee.
2. The Scientific Committee recognises that representatives
of Inter-Governmental Organisations with particular
relevance to the work of the Scientific Committee
may also participate as non-voting members, subject
to the agreement of the Chair of the Committee acting
according to such policy as the Commission may decide.
140
3. Further to paragraph 2 above the World Conservation

Union (IUCN) shall have similar status in the Scientific
Committee.
4. Non-member governments may be represented by
observers at meetings of the Scientific Committee,
subject to the arrangements given in Rule C.1(a) of the
Commissions Rules of Procedure.
5. Any non-governmental organisation sending an
accredited observer to a meeting of the Commission
may nominate a scientifically qualified observer to be
present at meetings of the Scientific Committee. Any
such nomination must reach the Secretary not less than
60 days before the start of the meeting in question and
must specify the scientific qualifications and relevant
experience of the nominee. The Chair of the Scientific
Committee shall decide upon the acceptability of any
nomination but may reject it only after consultation
with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission.
Observers admitted under this rule shall not participate
in discussions but the papers and documents of the
Scientific Committee shall be made available to them at
the same time as to members of the Committee.
6. The Chair of the Committee, acting according to
such policy as the Commission or the Scientific
Committee may decide, may invite qualified scientists
not nominated by a Commissioner to participate by
invitation or otherwise in committee meetings as nonvoting contributors. They may present and discuss
documents and papers for consideration by the Scientific
Committee, participate on sub-committees, and they
shall receive all Committee documents and papers.
(a) Convenors will submit suggestions for Invited
Participants (including the period of time they
would like them to attend) to the Chair (copied to
the Secretariat) not less than four months before
the meeting in question. The Convenors will base
their suggestions on the priorities and initial agenda
identified by the Committee and Commission at
the previous meeting. The Chair may also consider
offers from suitably qualified scientists to contribute
to priority items on the Committees agenda if they
submit such an offer to the Secretariat not less
than four months before the meeting in question,
providing information on the contribution they
believe that they can make. Within two weeks of
this, the Chair, in consultation with the Convenors
and Secretariat, will develop a list of invitees.
(b) The Secretary will then promptly issue a letter of
invitation to those potential Invited Participants
suggested by the Chair and Convenors. That
letter will state that there may be financial support
available, although invitees will be encouraged to
find their own support. Invitees who wish to be
considered for travel and subsistence will be asked
to submit an estimated airfare (incl. travel to and
from the airport) to the Secretariat, within 2 weeks.
Under certain circumstances (e.g. the absence of
a potential participant from their institute), the
Secretariat will determine the likely airfare.
At the same time as (b) a letter will be sent to
the government of the country where the scientists
is domiciled for the primary purpose of enquiring
whether that Government would be prepared to pay
for the scientists participation. If it is, the scientist
is no longer an Invited Participant but becomes a
national delegate.
(c) At least three months before the meeting, the

Secretariat will supply the Chair with a list of
participants and the estimated expenditure for each,
based on (1) the estimated airfare, (2) the period
of time the Chair has indicated the IP should be
present and (3) a daily subsistence rate based on
the actual cost of the hotel deemed most suitable by
the Secretary and Chair5, plus an appropriate daily
allowance.
At the same time as (c) a provisional list of the
proposed Invited Participants will be circulated
to Commissioners, with a final list attached to the
Report of the Scientific Committee.
(d) The Chair will review the estimated total cost
for all suggested participants against the money
available in the Commissions budget. Should there
be insufficient funds, the Chair, in consultation with
the Secretariat and Convenors where necessary, will
decide on the basis of the identified priorities, which
participants should be offered financial support and
the period of the meeting for which that support
will be provided. Invited Participants without IWC
support, and those not supported for the full period,
may attend the remainder of the meeting at their
own expense.
(e) At least two months before the meeting, the
Secretary will send out formal confirmation of
the invitations to all the selected scientists, in
accordance with the Commissions Guidelines,
indicating where appropriate that financial support
will be given and the nature of that support.
(f) In exceptional circumstances, the Chair, in
consultation with the Convenors and Secretariat,
may waive the above time restrictions.
(g) The letter of invitation to Invited Participants will
include the following ideas:

Under the Committees Rules of Procedure,
Invited Participants may present and discuss
papers, and participate in meetings (including
those of subgroups). They are entitled to receive
all Committee documents and papers. They
may participate fully in discussions pertaining
to their area of expertise. However, discussions
of Scientific Committee procedures and
policies are in principle limited to Committee
members nominated by member governments.
Such issues will be identified by the Chair of
the Committee during discussions. Invited
Participants are also urged to use their discretion
as regards their involvement in the formulation
of potentially controversial recommendations
to the Commission; the Chair may at his/her
discretion rule them out of order.
(h) After an Invited Participant has his/her participation
confirmed through the procedures set up above, a
Contracting Government may grant this person
national delegate status, thereby entitling him/her
to full participation in Committee proceedings,
without prejudice to funding arrangements
previously agreed upon to support the attendance of
the scientist in question.
7. A small number of interested local scientists may be
permitted to observe at meetings of the Scientific
Committee on application to, and at the discretion of,
the Chair. Such scientists should be connected with
the local Universities, other scientific institutions or
organisations, and should provide the Chair with a note

of their scientific qualifications and relevant experience
at the time of their application.
B. Agenda
1. The initial agenda for the Committee meeting of the
following year shall be developed by the Committee
prior to adjournment each year. The agenda should
identify, as far as possible, key issues to be discussed at
the next meeting and specific papers on issues should be
requested by the Committee as appropriate.
2. The provisional agenda for the Committee meeting shall
be circulated for comment 60 days prior to the Annual
Meeting of the Committee. Comments will normally
be considered for incorporation into the draft agenda
presented to the opening plenary only if received by
the Chair 21 days prior to the beginning of the Annual
Meeting.
C. Organisation
1. The Scientific Committee shall include standing subcommittees and working groups by area or species, or
other subject, and a standing sub-committee on small
cetaceans. The Committee shall decide at each meeting
on sub-committees for the coming year.
2. The sub-committees and working groups shall prepare
the basic documents on the identification, status and
trends of stocks, including biological parameters, and
related matters as necessary, for the early consideration
of the full Committee.
3. The sub-committees, except for the sub-committee
on small cetaceans, shall concentrate their efforts on
stocks of large cetaceans, particularly those which are
currently exploited or for which exploitation is under
consideration, or for which there is concern over their
status, but they may examine matters relevant to all
cetaceans where appropriate.
4. The Chair may appoint other sub-committees as
appropriate.
5. The Committee shall elect from among its members
a Chair and Vice-Chair who will normally serve for
a period of three years. They shall take office at the
conclusion of the annual meeting at which they are
elected. The Vice-Chair shall act for the Chair in his/
her absence.
The election process shall be undertaken by the heads
of national delegations who shall consult widely before
nominating candidates6. The Vice-Chair will become
Chair at the end of his/her term (unless he/she declines),
and a new Vice-Chair will then be elected. If the ViceChair declines to become Chair, then a new Chair must
also be elected. If the election of the Chair or ViceChair is not by consensus, a vote shall be conducted by
the Secretary and verified by the current Chair. A simple
majority shall be decisive. In cases where a vote is tied,
the Chair shall have the casting vote. If requested by
a head of delegation, the vote shall proceed by secret
ballot. In these circumstances, the results shall only
be reported in terms of which nominee received the
most votes, and the vote counts shall not be reported
or retained.
[Invited participants who choose to stay at a cheaper hotel will receive the
actual rate for their hotel plus the same daily allowance.]
141
D. Meetings
1. Meetings of the Scientific Committee as used in these
rules include all meetings of subgroups of the Committee,
e.g. sub-committees, working groups, workshops, etc.
2. The Scientific Committee shall meet prior to the
Annual Biennial Meeting of the Commission or
in years when the Commission does not meet, the
Scientific Committee shall meet prior to the meeting
of the Bureau. Special meetings of the Scientific
Committee or its subgroups may be held as agreed by
the Commission or the Chair of the Commission.
3. The Scientific Committee will organise its work in
accordance with a schedule determined by the Chair
with the advice of a group comprising sub-committee/
working group chairs and relevant members of the
Secretariat.
E. Scientific Papers and Documents
The following documents and papers will be considered by
the Scientific Committee for discussion and inclusion in its
report to the Commission:
1. Progress Reports. Each nation having information on
the biology of cetaceans, cetacean research, the taking
of cetaceans, or other matters it deems appropriate
should prepare a brief progress report following in the
format agreed by the Committee.
2. Special Reports. The Committee may request special
reports as necessary on matters to be considered by the
Committee for the following year.
3. Sub-committee Reports. Reports of the sub-committees
or working groups shall be included as annexes to
the Report to the Commission. Recommendations
contained therein shall be subject to modification by the
full Committee before inclusion in its Report.
4. Scientific and Working Papers.
(a) Any scientist may submit a scientific paper for
consideration by the Committee. The format and
submission procedure shall be in accordance with
guidelines established by the Secretariat with the
concurrence of the Committee. Papers published
elsewhere may be distributed to Committee
members for information as relevant to specific
topics under consideration.
(b) Scientific papers will be considered for discussion
and inclusion in the papers of the Committee only
if the paper is received by the Secretariat on or
by the first day of the annual Committee meeting,
intersessional meeting or any sub-group. Exceptions
to this rule can be granted by the Chair of the
Committee where there are exceptional extenuating
circumstances.
(c) Working papers will be distributed for discussion
only if prior permission is given by the Chair of
the committee or relevant sub-group. They will be
archived only if they are appended to the meeting
report.
(d) The Scientific Committee may receive and consider
unpublished scientific documents from nonmembers of the Committee (including observers)
and may invite them to introduce their documents
at a meeting of the Committee provided that they
are received under the same conditions (with regard
to timing etc.) that apply to members.
The Commissions Rule of Procedure on voting rights (rule E.2) also
applies to the Scientific Committee.
142
5. Publication of Scientific Papers and Reports.

(a) Scientific papers and reports considered by the
Committee that are not already published shall be
included in the Commissions archives in the form
in which they were considered by the Committee or
its sub-committees. Papers submitted to meetings
shall be available on request at the same time as the
report of the meeting concerned (see (b) below).
(b) The report of the Annual Meeting of the Scientific
Committee shall be distributed to all Commissioners
in accordance with the Commissions Rule of
Procedure M.5. no later than the beginning of
the opening plenary of the Annual Commission
Meeting and is confidential until this time.
Reports of intersessional Workshops or Special
Committee Meetings are confidential until they
have been dispatched by the Secretary to the full
Committee, Commissioners and Contracting
Governments.
Reports of intersessional Steering Groups or Subcommittees are confidential until they have been
discussed by the Scientific Committee, normally at
an Annual Meeting.
In this context, confidential means that reporting
of discussions, conclusions and recommendations
is prohibited. This applies equally to Scientific
Committee
members,
invited
participants
and observers. Reports shall be distributed to
Commissioners, Contracting Governments and
accredited observers at the same time.
The Scientific Committee should identify the
category of any intersessional meetings at the time
they are recommended.
(c) Scientific papers and reports (revised as
necessary) may be considered for publication by
the Commission. Papers shall be subject to peer
review before publication. Papers submitted shall
follow the Guidelines for Authors published by the
Commission.
F. Review of Scientific Permits
1. When proposed scientific permits are sent to the
Secretariat before they are issued by national
governments the Scientific Committee shall review the
scientific aspects of the proposed research at its annual
meeting, or during a special meeting called for that
purpose and comment on them to the Commission.
2. The review process shall take into account guidelines
issued by the Commission.
3. The proposed permits and supporting documents should
include specifics as to the objectives of the research,
number, sex, size, and stock of the animals to be taken,
opportunities for participation in the research by scientists
of other nations, and the possible effect on conservation
of the stock resulting from granting the permits.
4. Preliminary results of any research resulting from the
permits should be made available for the next meeting of
the Scientific Committee as part of the national progress
report or as a special report, paper or series of papers.
G. Financial Support for Research Proposals
1. The Scientific Committee shall identify research needs.
2. It shall consider unsolicited research proposals seeking
financial support from the Commission to address these
needs. A sub-committee shall be established to review and
rank research proposals received 4 months in advance of
the Annual Meeting and shall make recommendations to
the full Committee.
3. The Scientific Committee shall recommend in priority

order those research proposals for Commission financial
support as it judges best meet its objectives.
H. Availability of data
The Scientific Committee shall work with the Secretariat
to ensure that catch and scientific data that the Commission
holds are archived and accessible using modern computer
data handling techniques. Access to such data shall be
subject to the following rules.
1. Information identified in Section VI of the Schedule
that shall be notified or forwarded to the IWC or other
body designated under Article VII of the Convention.
This information is available on request through
the Secretariat to any interested persons with a
legitimate claim relative to the aims and purposes of the
Convention7.
2. Information and reports provided where possible under
Section VI of the Schedule.
When such information is forwarded to the IWC a
covering letter should make it clear that the information
or report is being made available, and it should identify
the pertinent Schedule paragraph under which the
information or report is being submitted.
Information made available to the IWC under this
provision is accessible to accredited persons as defined
under 4. below, and additionally to other interested
persons subject to the agreement of the government
submitting the information or report.
Such information already held by the Commission
is not regarded as having been forwarded until such
clarification of its status is received from the government
concerned.
3. Information neither required nor requested under the
Schedule but which has been or might be made available
to the Commission on a voluntary basis.
This information is of a substantially different status
from the previous two types. It can be further divided
into two categories:
(a) Information collected under International Schemes.
(i) Data from the IWC sponsored projects.
(ii) Data from the International Marking Scheme.
(iii) Data obtained from international collaborative
activities which are offered by the sponsors and
accepted as contributions to the Comprehensive
Assessment, or proposed by the Scientific
Committee itself.
Information collected as the result of IWC
sponsored activities and/or on a collaborative basis
with other organisations, governments, institutions
or individuals is available within those contributing
bodies either immediately, or, after mutual
agreement between the IWC and the relevant body/
person, after a suitable time interval to allow first
use rights to the primary contributors.
(b) Information collected under national programmes,
or other than in (a).
Information in this category is likely to be provided
by governments under special conditions and would
hence be subject to some degree of restriction of
access. This information can only be held under the
following conditions:
[The Government of Norway notes that for reasons of domestic legislation
it is only able to agree that data it provides under this paragraph are made
available to accredited persons.]
143
(i) A minimum level of access should be that

such data could be used by accredited persons
during the Scientific Committee meetings
using validated techniques or methods agreed
by the Scientific Committee. After the meeting,
at the request of the Scientific Committee, such
data could be accessed by the Secretariat for
use with previously specified techniques or
validated programs. Information thus made
available to accredited persons should not be
passed on to third parties but governments
might be asked to consider making such records
more widely available or accessible.
(ii) The restrictions should be specified at the time
the information is provided and these should be
the only restrictions.
(iii) Restrictions on access should not discriminate

amongst accredited persons.
(iv) All information held should be documented
(i.e. described) so that accredited persons know
what is held, along with stated restrictions on
the access to it and the procedures needed to
obtain permission for access.
4. Accredited persons. Accredited persons are those scientists
defined under sections A.1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Scientific Committee. Invited participants
are also considered as accredited during the intersessional
period following the meeting which they attend.
Appendix 5
PROVISIONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 2011-2012
Income and Expenditure Account
Income
Contracting Government contributions
Interest on overdue financial contributions
Voluntary contributions
Sales of publications
Sales of sponsored publications
Observers registration fees
UK taxes recoverable
Staff assessments
Interest receivable
Sundry income
Expenditure
Secretariat
Publications
Annual Meetings
Other meetings
Research expenditure
Small cetaceans
Southern Ocean Research Partnership
Conservation Management Plan
Operations
Other work
Grey whale tagging
Provisions
Unpaid interest and overdue contributions
Severance Pay Provision
Provision for other doubtful debts
Surplus/Deficit (-) for the year before transfers
Net Transfers to/(from) the Income and Expenditure Account
Sponsored Publications Fund
Research Fund
Small Cetaceans Fund
Annual Meeting Fund
Southern Ocean Research Partnership
Conservation Management Plan
Operations Fund
Other Work Fund
Gray Whale Tagging Fund
Surplus/Deficit (-) for the year after transfers
Approved Budget
1,679,000
0
2,000
15,000
500
51,500
26,300
166,750
3,000
0
1,944,050
Projected Out-turn
1,105,500
31,750
383,000
42,150
324,950
1,050
0
0
0
0
0
1,085,430
39,350
384,030
42,100
255,530
174,200
124,420
2,810
0
68,770
392,140
1,888,400
2,568,760
59,700
-27,000
22,950
62,330
11,410
0
1,944,050
0
1,650,750
9,100
469,150
15,000
110
51,400
26,200
167,000
3,000
500
2,392,210
2,642,500
-250,290
(520)
(1,660)
(52)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,480
(69,470)
109,510
1,030
104,260
2,760
0
11,730
64,800
-2,230
-18,180
144
Appendix 6
Budget options
Option One: Annual Meetings. Proposed Budget for 2012-13 and 2013-14
INCOME: continuing operations
Contributions from Member Governments
Voluntary Contributions
Staff assessments
Interest receivable
Sundry income
Total Income
EXPENDITURE
Secretariat
Publications
Annual Meetings
Other meetings
Provision made for:

Cancelled Financial Contributions
Provision for doubtful debts
Surplus / (-) deficit for the year

ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURE
SECRETARIAT
Salaries, national insurance and allowances
Retirement and other benefit schemes
Travelling expenses
Office rent, heating and maintenance
Insurance
Postage and telecommunications
Office equipment and consumables
Professional fees
Training and recruitment
Photocopying
Sundry
PUBLICATIONS
Annual Report
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
Sponsored publications
Operating Costs1
Operating Costs x 50% (Target Level)
General Fund
General Fund/Target Level (as a %)
Current Budget
2011-2012
1,679,000
0
15,000
500
51,500
26,300
166,750
3,000
0
Proposed Budget
2012-2013
1,693,472
8,000
10,000
300
43,000
24,000
175,463
5,000
250
Forecast Budget
2013-2014
1,707,451
8,000
9,000
300
43,000
24,000
180,727
5,000
250
1,942,050
1,959,485
1,977,728
1,105,500
31,750
383,000
42,150
324,950
1,103,935
15,600
374,500
42,150
315,800
1,124,178
11,600
374,500
42,150
315,800
1,887,350
1,851,985
1,868,228
22,950
-27,000
59,700
23,500
24,000
60,000
23,500
26,000
60,000
55,650
107,500
109,500
-950
2011-2012
722,900
151,300
10,250
102,300
4,200
22,200
52,850
22,600
7,800
2,950
6,150
2012-2013
747,109
141,806
9,100
102,460
5,200
18,000
53,760
15,000
4,000
4,500
3,000
2013-2014
769,492
146,826
9,100
112,460
5,700
12,000
25,600
15,000
4,000
21,000
3,000
1,105,500
1,103,935
1,124,178
7,650
24,100
0
2,500
13,000
100
2,500
9,000
100
31,750
15,600
11,600
Current Budget
2011-2012
1,943,000
971,500
953,883
98.2%
Proposed Budget
2012-2013
1,957,485
979,743
953.883
97.4%
Forecast Budget
2013-2014
1,977,728
988,864
953,883
96.5%
Operating costs are calculated as total expenditure plus the cost of all provisions.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\Annex J Tables.doc
12 November 2012
12:23
145
Option Two: Biennial Meetings. Proposed Budget for 2012-14

Current Budget
2011-2012
1,679,000
0
15,000
500
51,500
26,300
166,750
3,000
0

Staff assessments
Interest receivable
Sundry income
Total Income
EXPENDITURE
Secretariat
Publications
Annual Meetings
Other meetings
Provision made for:


SECRETARIAT
Travelling expenses
Insurance
Professional fees
Photocopying
Sundry
PUBLICATIONS
Annual Report
Operating Costs2
Operating Costs x 50% (Target Level)
General Fund
General Fund /Target Level (as a %)
1
Two Year Budget, Annual Invoicing

2012-2013
2013-2014
1,623,972
1,637,951
8,000
8,000
10,000
9,000
300
300
0
43,000
24,000
24,000
175,463
180,727
5,000
5,000
250
250
1,942,050
1,846,985
1,908,228
1,105,500
31,750
383,000
42,150
324,950
1,103,935
15,600
262,000
42,150
315,800
1,124,178
11,600
305,000
42,150
315,800
1,887,350
1,739,485
1,798,728
22,950
-27,000
59,700
23,500
24,000
60,000
23,500
26,000
60,000
55,650
107,500
109,500
-950
2011-2012
722,900
151,300
10,250
102,300
4,200
22,200
52,850
22,600
7,800
2,950
6,150
2012-2013
747,109
141,806
9,100
102,460
5,200
18,000
53,760
15,000
4,000
4,500
3,000
2013-2014
769,492
146,826
9,100
112,460
5,700
12,000
25,600
15,000
4,000
21,000
3,000
1,105,500
1,103,935
1,124,178
7,650
24,100
0
2,500
13,000
100
2,500
9,000
100
31,750
15,600
11,600
Current Budget
2011-2012
1,943,000
971,500
953,883
98.2%
Proposed Budget
2012-2013
1,957,485
979,743
953.883
97.4%
Forecast Budget
2013-2014
1,977,728
988,864
953,883
96.5%
Operating costs are calculated as total expenditure plus the cost of all provisions.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\Annex J Tables.doc
12 November 2012
12:23
146
Appendix 7
Scientific Committees recommended budget for the 2012/2013 intersessional period
See Annex M of the Chairs Report.
Appendix 8
CURRENT AND FUTURE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BUDGETARY SUB-COMMITTEE
Term of membership (years)
Current membership 2011-12
Future membership 2012-13
Future membership 2013-14
Group 1
Guinea (1)
Guinea Bissau (1)
Guinea (2)
Guinea Bissau (2)
Guinea (3)
Guinea Bissau (3)
Group 2
San Marino (1)

Russian Federation (1)
San Marino (2)

San Marino (3)

Group 3
Iceland (2)
New Zealand (1)
Iceland (3)
New Zealand (2)
Norway (1)
New Zealand (3)
Group 4
UK (1)
Japan
USA
UK (2)
Japan
USA
UK (3)
Japan
USA
Open Seats
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Chair
Vice-Chair
3
3
Martin Krebs (1) (Switzerland)

Elizabeth Phelps (1) (USA)


147
Annex K
Report of the Working Group on the Role of Observers at
Meetings of the Commission
Wednesday 27 June 2012, Panam City, Republic of Panama
Donna Petrachenko (Australia) was appointed Chair.
Simon Brockington (Secretariat) was appointed rapporteur.
The list of documents is given as Appendix 2.
1.4. Adoption of Agenda
The Chair noted that Resolution 2011-1 inter alia requested
the Secretary to convene a working group of Contracting
Governments and observers immediately prior to IWC/64 to
consider the role of observers at meetings of the Commission
based on experience gained in that regard at IWC/63 in 2011.
2. ROLE OF OBSERVERS AT MEETINGS OF THE
COMMISSION
2.1 Summary of recent Commission developments
regarding the role of Observers
The Secretary introduced IWC/64/OBS3 which summarised
the development of the Commissions procedures relating to
the role of observers from 2004 onwards. Between 2004 and
2007 the Commission discussed and implemented changes
to its procedures relating to the criteria for accreditation, the
number of individuals per organisation allowed to access
meeting rooms and also the fee structure and level applied
to NGO observer groups. These resulted in an elimination of
the requirement for NGOs to maintain international offices,
a relaxation of the restriction allowing only a single observer
into the meeting room at any one time and a more equitable
fee structure.
From 2008-10 the involvement of civil society
organisations was discussed as part of the Future of the
IWC process. During these years speaking rights for NGO
observers were introduced in the form of a dedicated 30
minute NGO Session during which six organisations
comprising three from each side of the debate addressed the
plenary meeting. These interventions were captured in the
Chairs reports from the 61st and 62nd Annual Meetings in
2009 and 2010.
In 2011 the procedures surrounding the NGO session

were further developed so as to allow six speakers (again
comprising three from each side of the debate) a total of 30
minutes of interventions spread over three specific agenda
items.
IWC/64/OBS3 noted that at IWC/63 in 2011 a number
of Contracting Governments had suggested that a review
of NGO speaking procedures was appropriate following
on from the introduction of the trial in 2008. The issues
with the 2008 trial included: (1) observers did not speak
to a specific agenda item, and hence interventions lacked
structure; (2) because of the absence of an agenda item for
NGO interventions Contracting Governments were not easily
able to respond; and (3) on occasions, the number of groups
speaking from each side of the debate was unequal. IWC/64/
OBS3 also proposed some possible solutions to these issues.
2.2 Working group discussion and recommendations
There was an extensive and wide ranging discussion
within the group to which several observer organisations
contributed. At the end of discussions there was consensus
that the Observer Working Group would make the following
recommendations to the Finance and Administration
Committee:
The thirty minute period for hearing NGO spoken
interventions was recommended as a base time allowance
for IWC/64. Furthermore the group recognised that the Chair
would need to exercise discretion so as to allow the debate to
flow smoothly, and therefore the group recommended that the
NGO interventions would be specific to subjects that would be
identified in advance through discussions between the Chair
and NGOs. The group also recommended that the Chair
should work to find a balance of representation in the NGO
interventions, and recognised that this representation would
need to consider both thematic and geographical contexts.
In recognition of a request made by the host government,
the group also recommended that some flexibility be allowed
in the implementation of the above proposal for involvement
of NGOs. In particular, the group recommended that the
30-minute allowance should be considered as a minimum
which could be slightly expanded upon as the meeting
moves forward within the overall time allowance for the
meeting as the Chair sees fit.
The report was adopted by post at 20:00 on 1 July 2012.
148
sixty-FOURTH annual meeting, annex K
Appendix 1
Argentina
Victor Marzari
Miguel Iguez
Australia
Pam Eiser
Stephanie Ierino
Chris Schweitzer
Victoria Wadley
Alexia Wellbelove
Austria
Andrea Nouak
Denmark
Gitte Hundahl
Chile
Barbara Galletti
Dominican Republic
Peter Sanchez
Costa Rica
Eugenia Arguedas
Ricardo Meneses
Denmark
le Samsing
Amalie Jessen
Nette Levermann
Ecuador
Gustavo Iturralde
Jorge Samaniego
Netherlands
Peter Bos
NGO Organisations
present:
Norway
Einar Tallaksen
Hild Ynnessdal
Animal Welfare Institute

DJ Schubert
Kate OConnell
Mexico
Yolanda Alaniz
Centro de Conservacion Cetacea

Jose Truda Palazzo
Elsa Cabrera
Javier Figueroa
Panama
Tomas Guardia
ECCEA
Marlon Mills
Paul Elliot Lewis
Norway
Kathrine Ryeng
Truls Soly
South Africa
Herman Oosthuizen
Ed Couzens
Sweden
Bo Fernholm
UK
Nigel Gooding
Jennifer Lonsdale
Anju Sharda
Mark Simmonds
Jolyon Thomson
Ghana
Mike Akyeampong
USA
Melissa Andersen
Doug DeMaster
Roger Eckert
Brian Gruber
Peter Jones
Lisa Phelps
Allison Reed
Jonathan Scordino
Ryan Wulff
Iceland
sta Einarsdottir
Secretariat
Simon Brockington
Germany
Karl-Hermann Kock
Lutz Friedrichsen
Japan
Akima Umezawa
Akiko Muramoto
Takaaki Sakamoto
Environmental Investigation
Agency
Clare Perry
Fluke Foundation
Mary Whitney
Fundacin Cethus
Marta Hevia
Greenpeace
John Frizell
Kitty Block
Grettel Delgadillo
Instituto de Conservacin de
Ballenas
Roxana Schteinbarg
Natural Resources Defense Council
Taryn Kiekow
Society for the Conservation of
Marine Mammals
Birgith Sloth
Windstar
Nancy Azzam
WDCS
Vanesa Tossenberger
Carolina Cassani
Laura Doehring
WWF International
Aimee Leslie
149
Appendix 2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
IWC/64/OBS
1. Draft Agenda
2. List of Documents
3. Summary of the Recent Development of Commission Procedures Regarding the Role of NGO Observers
Appendix 3
AGENDA
1.
2.
Introductory items
(a) Appointment of Chair
(b) Appointment of Rapporteurs
(c) Review of documents
Adoption of Agenda
3.
4.
Role of Observers at meetings of the Commission

(a) Summary of recent Commission developments
regarding the role of Observers
(b) Working group discussion and recommendations
Adoption of Report
150
sixty-FOURTH annual meeting, annex L
Annex L
Approved Budget for 2012/13 and Forecast Budget
for 2013/2014
Income and Expenditure Account
Forecast Budget, 2013-2014
Proposed Budget, 2012-2013

Staff assessments
Interest receivable
Sundry income
Total Income
EXPENDITURE
Secretariat
Publications
Annual Meetings
Other meetings
Provision made for:
1,637,951
8,000
9,000
300
43,000
24,000
180,727
5,000
250
1,908,228
1,623,972
8,000
10,000
300
0
24,000
175,463
5,000
250
1,846,985
1,103,935
15,600
262,000
42,150
315,800
1,739,485
1,124,178
11,600
305,000
42,150
315,800
1,798,728
23,500
24,000
60,000
107,500
23,500
26,000
60,000
109,500
SECRETARIAT
Travelling expenses
Insurance
Professional fees
Photocopying
Sundry
PUBLICATIONS
Annual Report
Operating costs
Operating costs x 50% (target level)
General Fund
General Fund/target level (as a %)
747,109
141,806
9,100
102,460
5,200
18,000
53,760
15,000
4,000
4,500
3,000
1,103,935
769,492
146,826
9,100
112,460
5,700
12,000
25,600
15,000
4,000
21,000
3,000
1,124,178
2,500
13,000
100
15,600
2,500
9,000
100
11,600
1,957,485
979,743
953.883
97.4%
1,977,728
988,864
953,883
96.5%
151
Annex M
Approved Research Budget for 2012/2013
Approved
Budget ()
Title
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
Development of an operating model for West Greenland humpback and bowhead whales
Workshop on development of SLAs for Greenlandic hunts
AWMP developers funds
Ship Strike Database coordinator
Right whale survey off South Africa
Genomic diversity and phylogenetic relationships among right whales
Photographic matching of gray whales
Contribution to the preparation of the State of the Cetacean Environment Report (SOCER)
Pre-meeting Workshop on Assessing the Impacts of Marine Debris
Develop simulations of Southern Hemisphere minke line transect data
IWC-POWER cruise for summer 2013
Preparation for the application of the statistical catch-at-age assessment method for Southern Hemisphere minke whales
Second intersessional Workshop on the Implementation Review for WNP common minke whales
Essential computing for RMP/NPM and AWMP
MSYR Review Workshop
Review and guidelines for model-based and design-based line transect abundance estimates
Modelling of Southern Hemisphere humpback whale populations
Antarctic Humpback Whale Catalogue
Photo matching of Antarctic blue whales
Southern Hemisphere Blue Whale Catalogue 2012/13
Expert workshop for final review of Icelands Special Permit programme on common minke whales
Whalewatching guidelines and operator training in Oman
Invited Participants (IPs) funds
TOTAL
*Note that in addition, there are budget requests for two additional separate funds (Small Cetaceans and SORP).
5,000
8,000
3,000
8,000
21,730
0
9,000
3,000
20,500
5,000
60,754
4,000
18,500
25,000
5,000
5,000
3,000
13,000
3,000
3,000
24,000
3,500
64,000
314,984
152
sixty-FOURTH annual meeting, annex N
Annex N
Amendments to the Schedule Adopted
at the 64th Annual Meeting
At the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Panama City, Panama from 2-6 July 2012, no
modifications were made to provisions for zero catch limits for commercial whaling with effect from the 1986 coastal and
1985/86 pelagic seasons.
The following amendments to the Schedule of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling are necessary
(changes in bold italics type):
Paragraphs 11 and 12, and Tables 1, 2 and 3:
Substitute the dates 2011/12 pelagic season and 2012 coastal season for 2012/13 pelagic season and 2013 coastal
season as appropriate.
In addition, at IWC/64, the Commission agreed by three-fourths majority vote a proposal to amend the Schedule to establish
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch limits for bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas, for gray whales
from the Eastern stock in the North Pacific and for humpback whales around St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
These changes are shown in paragraphs 13.(b)(1)(i), 13.(b)(2)(i) and 13.(b)(4) respectively of the Schedule.
Paragraphs 13(b)(1), (2) and (4) of the Schedule are amended to read:
13...
(b) Catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling are as follows:

(1) The taking of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock by aborigines is permitted, but only
when the meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines
and further provided that:
(i) For the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the number of bowhead whales landed shall not
exceed 336. For each of these years the number of bowhead whales struck shall not exceed 67, except that
any unused portion of a strike quota from any year (including 15 unused strikes from the 2008-2012
quota) shall be carried forward and added to the strike quotas of any subsequent years, provided that no
more than 15 strikes shall be added to the strike quota for any one year.
(ii) This provision shall be reviewed annually by the Commission in light of the advice of the Scientific
Committee.
(2) The taking of gray whales from the Eastern stock in the North Pacific is permitted, but only by aborigines or
a Contracting Government on behalf of aborigines, and then only when the meat and products of such whales
are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines.
(i) For the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the number of gray whales taken in accordance
with this sub-paragraph shall not exceed 744, provided that the number of gray whales taken in any one
of the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 shall not exceed 140.
(ii) This provision shall be reviewed annually by the Commission in light of the advice of the Scientific
Committee.
(4) For the seasons 2013-2018 the number of humpback whales to be taken by the Bequians of St. Vincent and
The Grenadines shall not exceed 24. The meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local
consumption in St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Financial Statements
for the
Year ended 31 August 2012
153
155
Financial Statement for the year ended 31 August 2012

Statement of the Secretarys Responsibilities
The financial responsibilities of the Secretary to the Commission are set
out in its Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations. Fulfilment of those
responsibilities requires the Secretary to prepare financial statements for
each financial year which set out the state of affairs of the Commission as at
the end of the financial year and the surplus or deficit of the Commission for
that period. In preparing those financial statements, the Secretary should:
Select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently;
Make judgements and estimates that are reasonable and prudent;
Prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it

is inappropriate to presume that the Commission will continue in
operation.
The Secretary is responsible for keeping adequate accounting records
which disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position
of the Commission. The Secretary is also responsible for safeguarding the
assets of the Commission and hence for taking reasonable steps for the
prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.
Independent Auditors Report to the Commission
We have audited the financial statements of the International Whaling Commission for the year ended 31 August 2012 which comprise the accounting policies,
the income and expenditure account, the analysis of expenditure, the balance sheet and the related notes on the following pages. These financial statements
have been prepared under the accounting policies set out therein. This report is made solely to the Commission. Our audit work has been undertaken so that
we might state to the Commission those matters we are required to state to them in an auditors report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted
by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the Commission for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.
Respective Responsibilities of the Secretary and Auditors
As described in the statement of the Secretarys responsibilities, the
Secretary is responsible for the preparation of financial statements.
Neither statute nor the Commission has prescribed that the financial
statements should give a true and fair view of the Commissions state
of affairs at the end of each year within the specialised meaning of that
expression in relation to financial statements. This recognised terminology
signifies in accounting terms that statements are generally accepted as
true and fair only if they comply in all material aspects with accepted
accounting principles. These are embodied in accounting standards issued
by the Accounting Standards Board. The Commission has adopted certain
accounting policies which represent departures from accounting standards:
fixed assets are not capitalised within the Commissions accounts.
Instead fixed assets are charged to the income and expenditure account
in the year of acquisition. Hence, the residual values of the furniture,
fixtures and fittings and equipment are not reflected in the accounts;
publications stocks are charged to the income and expenditure account
in the year of acquisition and their year end valuation is not reflected in
the accounts;
provision is made for the severance pay which would be payable should
the Commission cease to function.
This is permissible as the financial statements are not required to give
a true and fair view.
It is our responsibility to form an independent opinion, based on our
audit, on those statements and to report our opinion to you. We also report
if the Commission has not kept proper accounting records or if we have
not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit.
Anthony Wright (Senior Statutory Auditor)
For and on behalf of Edwards Chartered Accountants
15 Station Road, St Ives, Cambridgeshire, PE27 5BH
1st March 2013
Basis of Opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with International Auditing Standards
issued by the Auditing Practices Board. An audit includes examination,
on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. It also includes an assessment of the significant
estimates and judgements made by the Secretary in the preparation of the
financial statements, and of whether the accounting policies are appropriate
to the Commissions circumstances, consistently applied and adequately
disclosed.
We planned and performed our audit so as to obtain all the information
and explanations which we considered necessary in order to provide us
with sufficient evidence to give reasonable assurance that the financial
statements are free from material misstatement whether caused by fraud
or other irregularity or error. In forming our opinion, we also evaluated
the overall adequacy of the presentation of information in the financial
statements.
Accounting Policies - Year Ended 31 August 2012

The accounting policies adopted by the Commission in the preparation
of these financial statements are as set out below. The departures from
generally accepted accounting practice are considered not to be significant
for the reasons stated.
indemnity varies according to length of service and therefore an annual

provision is made to bring the total provision up to the maximum liability.
This liability is calculated after adjusting for staff assessments since they
would not form part of the Commissions liability.
Convention
These accounts are prepared under the historical cost convention (i.e. assets
and liabilities are stated at cost and not re-valued).
Interest on Overdue Contributions

Interest is included in the income and expenditure account on the accruals
basis and provision is made where its recoverability is in doubt.
Fixed Assets
The full cost of furniture and equipment is written off in the income and
expenditure account in the year in which it is incurred. The total cost
of equipment owned by the Commission amounts to 152,645 and its
realisable value is not considered to be significant. Proposed expenditure
on new items is included in budgets and raised by contributions for the year.
Leases
The costs of operating leases are charged to the income and expenditure
account as they fall due for payment.
Publications
The full cost of printing publications is written off in the year. No account
is taken of stocks which remain unsold at the balance sheet date. Most sales
occur shortly after publication and so stock levels held are mainly made up
of old unsold stock which is unlikely to result in many sales, consequently
their net realisable value is not significant.
The Commission provides for an indemnity to members of staff in the event
of their appointment being terminated on the abolition of their posts. The
Added Emphasis
In forming our opinion we have taken account of the absence of a
requirement for the financial statements to give a true and fair view as
described above.
Opinion
In our opinion the financial statements have been properly prepared in
accordance with the accounting policies and present a proper record of the
transactions of the Commission for the year ended 31 August 2012.
Foreign Exchange
Transactions dominated in foreign currencies are translated into sterling at
the rate ruling at the date of the transaction. Monetary assets and liabilities
denominated in foreign currencies at the balance sheet date are translated
at the rate ruling at that date. These translation differences are dealt with in
the income and expenditure account.
Retirement Benefits Scheme
The Commission operates a defined contribution retirement benefits
scheme. The costs represent the amount of the Commissions contributions
payable to the scheme in respect of the accounting period.
156
Income and Expenditure Account (Year Ended 31 August 2012)
[Note]
Contributions from member governments
Voluntary contributions for all Funds
Staff assessments
Interest receivable
Sundry income
Expenditure
Secretariat
Publications
Annual Meetings
Other meetings
Small cetaceans
Southern Ocean Research Partnership (voluntary fund)
Conservation Management Plan fund
Operations (voluntary fund)
IWC - other work fund
Gray whale tagging (voluntary fund)
Provisions made for:
Unpaid contributions
Unpaid interest on overdue contributions
Severance pay
Other doubtful debts
2012
[App 1]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[19]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
1,074,350
18,661
531,129
35,934
250,581
34,267
23,562
37,109
282,704
2,288,297
30,674
9,478
10,800
(5,879)
80,045
3,427
(32,000)
(1,578)
2,453,894
2,338,191
(261,821)
(135,701)
(1,791)
(91,566)
110,376
18,650
76,926
5,296
24,887
3,312
141,123
Surplus/(deficit) for the year after transfers
1,608,610
8,082
330,620
10,772
307
40,739
24,361
173,854
4,760
385
2,202,490
1,044,249
28,440
401,650
40,871
239,753
178,591
113,124
5,386
103,727
253,030
2,408,821
(Deficit)/surplus for the year before transfers

Net transfers to/(from) Income and Expenditure Account
Publications fund
Research fund
Small cetaceans fund
Annual Meeting fund
Southern Ocean Research Partnership fund
Operations fund
Gray whale tagging fund
2011
1,638,254
9,478
97,923
297,
923
1,962
1,780
46,165
23,798
170,450
1,716
546
2,192,073
[App 2]
[1]
[2]
(322)
(72,629)
19,885
(4,094)
23,412
(153)
3,518
167,903
287,212
137,520
25,391
1,819
There are no recognised gains or losses for the current financial year and the preceding financial year other than as stated in the
income and expenditure account.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\FinStatesTabs.doc
18 March 2013
10:25
157
Analysis of Expenditure (Year Ended 31 August 2012)

1
SECRETARIAT
Travelling expenses
Insurance
Professional fees
Photocopying
Sundry
PUBLICATIONS
Annual Report
RESEARCH
Invited Participants
Contract 14 analysis support (DESS)
IA - Abundance estimation Antarctic minke whales using SOWER data
WNP minke whales: Workshop.
IA - Integrated model analysis
Preparation re: survey issues relative to changes in minke whale abundance estimates between CPU and CPIII
IA - Investigate sea ice and Antarctic minke whale abundance
IA - Statistical catch-at-age estimation for Antarctic minke whales
SH - Humpback whales: Antarctic humpback whale catalogue
SH - Humpback whales: abundance in Oceania
SH - Blue whale photo-id catalogue
Pre-meeting: Marine Renewable Energy Developments and Cetaceans
IWC global ship strike database
SOCER (State of the Cetacean Environment Report)
BC - Develop online database for Progress Reports
E - Risk assess impact of pollutants on cetacean populations
AWMP - fund for developers
AWMP - genetic simulation studies
Workshop on Greenland hunts
SH - Humpback whales: assessment model development
SH - Humpback whales: mixing analyses
IA - development support
2009/10 SOWER cruise and 2011 North Pacific planning
Past cruise analysis and future cruise expenses
Catch data
RMP (SC) Intersessional
RMP - Investigate DNA/allozyme anomalies
RMP - Analysis of calving rates for use in MSYR review
RMP computing support
BRG - Southern Ocean right whale photo-id catalogue
Southern Right Whale Assessment Workshop
Pacific wide study on population structure and movement patterns
Intersessional Workshop - Guidelines for the analysis of population genetic data and genetic data quality
control
WW - Data compilation and power analyses for LaWE
Other including exchange differences
SMALL CETACEANS
SM - Invited Participants
Franciscana abundance estimate
Climate Change Workshop, Vienna, 2010
Conservation solutions for the Yangtze finless porpoise (Turvey; 1 year; 33,600)
Conservation of coastal Indo-Pacific humpback and bottlenose dolphins on the west of Madagascar
(Cerchio; 3 years; 33,900)
Abundance and distribution of the Atlantic humpback dolphin in Gabon and Congo (Collins; 1 year; 27,900)
Investigation population ID Indo-Pacific humpback in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh
(Smith; 2 years; 31,700)
2012
2011
693,047
154,104
3,928
91,825
5,361
19,844
50,282
17,150
3,918
3,150
1,640
1,044,249
721,165
153,686
7,130
97,501
5,316
17,680
51,778
13,041
1,570
2,702
2,781
1,074,350
9,922
18,518
28,440
5,700
12,961
18,661
70,395
10,470
13,405
4,000
2,386
10,000
7,185
3,520
3,000
19,150
3,500
7,721
3,000
19,625
693
1,085
1,000
23,935
19,546
6,200
3,538
48,096
9,720
10,875
25,188
2,000
5,000
2,500
10,013
2,902
18,800
9,664
3,000
1,143
38,350
4,244
9,555
2,851
7,000
3,000
2,055
17,993
7,000
4,637
3,800
-
4,000
2,400
239,753
1,195
250,581
4,294
23,246
25,200
11,206
6,669
17,129
10,419
-
20,944
15,869
Cont.
18 March 2013
10:25
158
SMALL CETACEANS cont.

Photo-ID of east Taiwan Strait population of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis)
(Wang; 2 years; 32,500)
Assess genetics and demography - dolphins taken in traditional drive-hunt in the Solomon Islands
Assess threat re: coastal cetacean populations in Sarawak, Malaysia (Minton; 1 year; 20,440)
Assess alternative fishing gears to avoid bycatch of vaquita in the Upper Gulf of California, Mexico
(1 year; 33,270)
SOUTHERN OCEAN RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP (SORP)
Interactions between baleen whales and krill in the Antarctic (Nicols)
Killer whale distribution, abundance and migration in the Antarctic area (Pitman)
Killer whale distribution, abundance and migration in the Antarctic area (Guinet)
Killer whale distribution, abundance and migration in the Antarctic area (Dalla Rosa)
Foraging ecology and predator-prey interactions/baleen whales and krill: study across Antarctic
(part 2 Coordinators salary) (Friedlaender)
Assess migration and mixing of SH humpback whales around Antarctica. (part 2 Coordinators salary)
(Constantine and Segedin)
Study distribution, abundance, migration and foraging ecology of 3 ecotypes of killer whales in Antarctica
(part 2 Coordinators salary) (Pitman)
(Guinet and Tixier)
Foraging ecology and predator-prey interactions/baleen whales and krill: study across Antarctica
(part 2 coordinators salary) (Friedlaender)
(part 2 coordinators salary) (Pitman)
Study distribution, relative abundance, migration patterns and foraging ecology of 3 ecotypes of killer whales
in Antarctic and adjacent waters (part 2 coordinators salary) (Dalla Rosa)
Living whales in the Southern Ocean: Workshop on methods for non-lethal cetacean research
(coordinators salary) (Galetti)
Acoustic trends in abundance, distribution, and seasonal presence of blue and fin whales in the Southern
Ocean: data analysis (for analysis salary) (Adams)
Ocean: data analysis (for analysis salary) (Mussolini and Shulman)
Ocean (coordinator and analysis salary) (Stafford)
Ocean (7,800; steering group meeting) (8,125; coordinator and salary for analysis) (Samaran)
Living Whales Symposium,
Symposium ,Chile,
Chile,March
March2012
2012(SORP
(SORPfunded)
funded)
SORP Invited Participants
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

CMP expenditure (VC funded)
IWC - OTHER WORK FUND

GFR unspecified expenditure voluntary contributions
Whalewatching Workshop - Argentina
Ship strikes - IWC-ACCOBANS - joint workshop + database
Entanglement Workshop - Hawaii
Fund raising expenses - conservation
Reduction of conflict/cetaceans and ships etc./2nd entanglement Workshop
North Pacific gray whale Implementation Review
WGW photo-catalogue (Calambokidis) sf VC6.2+VC14.2->VC30
GRAY WHALE TAGGING

GWT Expenditure (VC funded)
18 March 2013
10:25
2012
2011
16,271
21,212
15,350
24,952
47
178,591
50
34,267
3,769
11,269
5,344
2,715
2,734
-
15,026
1,794
915
8,794
5,888
3,129
5,257
1,890
7,413
10,894
11,959
36,396
113,124
1,500
23,562
5,386
5,386
20,994
10,479
19,395
40,758
9,757
2,345
103,727
17,621
18,158
1,330
37,109
251,434
1,596
253,030
282,704
282,704
159
Balance Sheet as at 31 August 2012
2012
[Note]
Cash on short term deposit
General fund
Southern Ocean Research Partnership (Voluntary fund)
Conservation Management Plan (Voluntary fund)
Research fund
Publications fund
1,448,610
149,116
240,637
18,759
456,011
21,914
130,878
Cash at bank on current account

Annual Meeting fund
Research fund
Publications fund
Cash in hand
18,013
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
346
Outstanding contributions from members

including interest
Less provision for doubtful debts
FINANCED BY
Publications fund
Research fund
Annual Meeting fund
Southern Ocean Research Partnership fund
Operations fund
Gray whale tagging fund
General fund
2,465,925
22,359
2,488,283
49,603
-
[20]
[19]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[21]
523
49,603
18 March 2013
1,630,279
232,342
244,636
18,806
214,338
29,497
263,125
2,049
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
133
2,633,023
6,682
2,639,705
(462,736)
86,676
(5,879)
26,365
80,797
2,538,409
2,746,867
(180,381)
(137,818)
2,358,028
2,609,049
(363,900)
(353,100)
1,994,128
2,255,949
41,086
381,785
130,262
(14,556)
128,926
239,362
23,288
91,790
(7,090)
979,274
1,994,128
39,295
290,219
240,638
4,094
205,852
244,658
48,175
95,102
134,033
953,883
2,255,949
Approved on behalf of the Commission

Simon Brockington (Secretary)
Dated: 1 March 2013
489,101
(502,889)
NET CURRENT ASSETS

PROVISION FOR SEVERANCE PAY
503,412
Other debtors and prepayments

Less provision for other doubtful debts
CREDITORS:
Amounts falling due within one year
2011
10:25
160
Notes to the Accounts (Year Ended 31 August 2012)
Publications fund
Interest receivable
Receipts from sales of sponsored publications
Net transfers (to)/from income and
expenditure account
Opening balance as at 01 September 2011
Closing balance as at 31 August 2012
10 Research fund
Allocation for research
Voluntary contributions received
Interest receivable
Expenditure
expenditure account
11 Small cetaceans fund
Interest receivable
Expenditure
expenditure account
12 Annual Meeting fund
Allocation for meetings
Expenditure
expenditure account
13 Southern Ocean Research Partnership fund
Interest receivable
Expenditure
expenditure account
14 Conservation Management Plan fund
Interest receivable
Expenditure
expenditure account
2012
2011
2012
2011
11
1,780
1,791
15
307
322
(24,887)
(24,887)
39,295
41,086
38,973
39,295
48,175
23,288
48,175
48,175
324,950
6,216
153
(239,753)
91,566
315,800
7,257
153
(250,581)
72,629
91,531
(2)
(103,727)
(16,000)
24,887
(3,312)
33,589
2
(37,109)
(3,518)
290,219
381,785
217,590
290,219
95,102
91,790
98,620
95,102
68,141
73
(178,591)
(110,376)
14,251
131
(34,267)
(19,885)
111,908
(253,030)
(141,123)
114,801
(282,704)
(167,903)
240,638
130,262
260,523
240,638
134,033
(7,090)
301,936
134,033
383,000
(401,650)
(18,650)
374,500
160,723
(531,129)
4,094
953,883
25,391
952,064
1,819
979,274
953,883
4,094
(14,556)
4,094
(353,100)
(10,800)
(385,100)
32,000
16,000
20,127
71
(113,124)
(76,926)
150
(23,562)
(23,412)
(363,900)
(353,100)
20 Creditors: amounts falling due within one year

Deferred contributions income
115,382
Other creditors and accruals
64,999
180,381
92,867
44,951
137,818
205,852
128,926
229,264
205,852
(261,821)
2,255,949
1,994,128
91
(5,386)
(5,296)
153
153
244,658
239,362
244,505
244,658
15 Operations fund
Allocation for other work
expenditure account
16 IWC - other work fund
Interest receivable
Expenditure
Allocation for other work
expenditure account
17 Gray whale tagging fund
Expenditure
expenditure account
18 General fund
expenditure account
19 Provision for severance pay
expenditure account
21 Reconciliation of movement in funds

Excess (surplus) of expenditure over income
Opening funds
Closing funds
(135,701)
2,391,650
2,255,949
22 Financial commitments
The Commission had annual commitments at 31 August 2012 under non-cancellable operating leases as set out below and which expire:
2012
2011
Land and buildings
Office equipment
Land and buildings
Office equipment
Within 2 to 5 years
60,000
23,015
60,000
23,015
The lease on the IWC Secretariat Offices was renewed from 18 March 2009 for 10 years, with an option to break after 5 years.
18 March 2013
10:25
161
Appendix 1
Financial Contributions for the Year Ended 31 August 2012
Line No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Country
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Chile
China, P.R of
Colombia
Congo, Rep
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Hungary
Iceland
India
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Financial Contribution
6,944
12,500
36,633
24,287
24,287
4,630
4,630
12,500
8,333
6,944
12,500
12,500
8,333
12,500
4,630
12,500
12,500
18,114
18,114
24,287
50,177
4,630
12,500
12,500
4,630
24,287
24,287
56,428
4,630
6,944
62,601
12,500
18,114
6,944
8,333
4,630
6,944
12,500
56,350
12,500
24,287
24,287
56,428
131,700
8,333
Line No.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Total originally requested from Contracting Governments
Country
Kiribati
Korea, Rep of
Lao PDR
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Oman
Palau
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Senegal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
St Kitts and Nevis
St Vincent and The Grenadines
St. Lucia
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Togo
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Uruguay
USA
Total
1,678,994
Less Financial Contributions for 2011/12 cancelled as per Financial Regulation F5(a)
Cameroon
Gambia, The
Guatemala
Kenya
Senegal
(12,500)
(6,944)
(8,333)
(8,333)
(4,630)
Total net Financial Contributions receivable for the Financial Year 2011/12
18 March 2013
Financial Contribution
6,944
30,460
4,630
8,333
24,287
4,630
4,630
6,944
12,500
12,500
6,944
12,500
6,944
24,287
30,460
4,630
56,350
8,333
6,944
12,500
8,333
12,500
24,287
8,333
28,205
8,333
4,630
18,114
18,114
4,630
12,500
56,428
6,944
4,630
6,944
4,630
24,287
24,287
8,333
6,944
6,944
68,774
12,500
88,490
1,638,254
10:25
162
Appendix 2
Analysis of Voluntary Contributions received in 2011/12
Donor
Exxon Nefgas
IUCN
Government of Australia
Government of Australia
OceanCare
Government of UK
Government of USA
WSPA
WSPA
WWF
Government of Italy
Government of France
OceanCare
Government of UK
WSPA
Amount ()
38,501
73,407
20,127
19,335
6,216
10,000
55,196
3,000
4,000
2,300
16,994
24,849
998
20,000
3,000
Purpose
North Pacific Gray Whale Tagging Programme.
North Pacific Gray Whale Tagging Programme.
Contribution towards the Living Whales Symposium.
Fundraising to support conservation work.
Contribution towards the Marine Debris and Cetaceans Workshop, May 2013, Korea.
Contribution towards the Workshop on Euthanasia of Large Stranded Whales.
Applied to the IWC - other work fund.
Contribution towards whale welfare issues.
Contribution towards Marine Debris Workshop, Korea.
Contributions towards the IWCs work on Small Cetaceans.
297,923
18 March 2013
10:25
163
International Convention
for the
Regulation of Whaling
signed at Washington, 2 December 1946
and its
Protocol
signed at Washington, 19 November 1956
The Schedule which is attached to the Convention and under Article I forms an integral part thereof is amended
regularly by the Commission. The most recent version begins on p. 169 of this volume.
165
for the
Regulation of Whaling
Washington, 2nd December, 1946
The Governments whose duly authorised representatives
have subscribed hereto,
Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world
in safeguarding for future generations the great natural
resources represented by the whale stocks;
Considering that the history of whaling has seen overfishing of one area after another and of one species of whale
after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all
species of whales from further over-fishing;
Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of
natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that
increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases
in the number of whales which may be captured without
endangering these natural resources;
Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve
the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible
without causing widespread economic and nutritional
distress;
Recognizing that in the course of achieving these
objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those
species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give
an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now
depleted in numbers;
Desiring to establish a system of international regulation
for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective
conservation and development of whale stocks on the
basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the
International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling,
signed in London on 8th June, 1937, and the protocols to that
Agreement signed in London on 24th June, 1938, and 26th
November, 1945; and
Having decided to conclude a convention to provide
for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make
possible the orderly development of the whaling industry;
Have agreed as follows:Article I
1. This Convention includes the Schedule attached thereto
which forms an integral part thereof. All references to
Convention shall be understood as including the said
Schedule either in its present terms or as amended in
accordance with the provisions of Article V.
2. This Convention applies to factory ships, land stations,
and whale catchers under the jurisdiction of the
Contracting Governments and to all waters in which
whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships, land
stations, and whale catchers.
Article II
As used in this Convention:1. Factory ship means a ship in which or on which
whales are treated either wholly or in part;
2. Land station means a factory on the land at which

whales are treated either wholly or in part;
3. Whale catcher means a ship used for the purpose of
hunting, taking, towing, holding on to, or scouting for
whales;
4. Contracting Government means any Government
which has deposited an instrument of ratification or has
given notice of adherence to this Convention.
Article III
1. The Contracting Governments agree to establish an
International Whaling Commission, hereinafter referred
to as the Commission, to be composed of one member
from each Contracting Government. Each member shall
have one vote and may be accompanied by one or more
experts and advisers.
2. The Commission shall elect from its own members a
Chairman and Vice-Chairman and shall determine its
own Rules of Procedure. Decisions of the Commission
shall be taken by a simple majority of those members
voting except that a three-fourths majority of those
members voting shall be required for action in
pursuance of Article V. The Rules of Procedure may
provide for decisions otherwise than at meetings of the
Commission.
3. The Commission may appoint its own Secretary and
staff.
4. The Commission may set up, from among its own
members and experts or advisers, such committees as it
considers desirable to perform such functions as it may
authorize.
5. The expenses of each member of the Commission and
of his experts and advisers shall be determined and paid
by his own Government.
6. Recognizing that specialized agencies related to the
United Nations will be concerned with the conservation
and development of whale fisheries and the products
arising therefrom and desiring to avoid duplication of
functions, the Contracting Governments will consult
among themselves within two years after the coming
into force of this Convention to decide whether the
Commission shall be brought within the framework of a
specialized agency related to the United Nations.
7. In the meantime the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall arrange, in
consultation with the other Contracting Governments,
to convene the first meeting of the Commission, and
shall initiate the consultation referred to in paragraph
6 above.
8. Subsequent meetings of the Commission shall be
convened as the Commission may determine.
166
iNTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING, 1946
Article IV
1. The Commission may either in collaboration with
or through independent agencies of the Contracting
Governments or other public or private agencies,
establishments, or organizations, or independently
(a) encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organize
studies and investigations relating to whales and
whaling;
(b) collect and analyze statistical information
concerning the current condition and trend of the
whale stocks and the effects of whaling activities
thereon;
(c) study, appraise, and disseminate information
concerning methods of maintaining and increasing
the populations of whale stocks.
2. The Commission shall arrange for the publication of
reports of its activities, and it may publish independently
or in collaboration with the International Bureau for
Whaling Statistics at Sandefjord in Norway and other
organizations and agencies such reports as it deems
appropriate, as well as statistical, scientific, and other
pertinent information relating to whales and whaling.
Article V
1. The Commission may amend from time to time the
provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with
respect to the conservation and utilization of whale
resources, fixing
(a) protected and unprotected species;
(b) open and closed seasons;
(c) open and closed waters, including the designation
of sanctuary areas;
(d) size limits for each species;
(e) time, methods, and intensity of whaling (including
the maximum catch of whales to be taken in any
one season);
(f) types and specifications of gear and apparatus and
appliances which may be used;
(g) methods of measurement; and
(h) catch returns and other statistical and biological
records.
2. These amendments of the Schedule
(a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the
objectives and purposes of this Convention and
to provide for the conservation, development, and
optimum utilization of the whale resources;
(b) shall be based on scientific findings;
(c) shall not involve restrictions on the number or
nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor
allocate specific quotas to any factory ship or land
station or to any group of factory ships or land
stations; and
(d) shall take into consideration the interests of the
consumers of whale products and the whaling
industry.
3. Each of such amendments shall become effective
with respect to the Contracting Governments ninety
days following notification of the amendment by the
Commission to each of the Contracting Governments,
except that
(a) if any Government presents to the Commission
objection to any amendment prior to the expiration
of this ninety-day period, the amendment shall
not become effective with respect to any of the
Governments for an additional ninety days;
(b) thereupon, any other Contracting Government may

present objection to the amendment at any time
prior to the expiration of the additional ninetyday period, or before the expiration of thirty
days from the date of receipt of the last objection
received during such additional ninety-day period,
whichever date shall be the later; and
(c) thereafter, the amendment shall become effective
with respect to all Contracting Governments which
have not presented objection but shall not become
effective with respect to any Government which
has so objected until such date as the objection
is withdrawn. The Commission shall notify each
Contracting Government immediately upon
receipt of each objection and withdrawal and each
Contracting Government shall acknowledge receipt
of all notifications of amendments, objections, and
withdrawals.
4. No amendments shall become effective before 1st July,
1949.
Article VI
The Commission may from time to time make
recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on
any matters which relate to whales or whaling and to the
objectives and purposes of this Convention.
Article VII
The Contracting Government shall ensure prompt
transmission to the International Bureau for Whaling
Statistics at Sandefjord in Norway, or to such other body
as the Commission may designate, of notifications and
statistical and other information required by this Convention
in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the
Commission.
Article VIII
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention
any Contracting Government may grant to any of its
nationals a special permit authorizing that national to
kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific
research subject to such restrictions as to number and
subject to such other conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and
treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of
this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this
Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report
at once to the Commission all such authorizations which
it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at
any time revoke any such special permit which it has
granted.
2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so
far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be
dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the
Government by which the permit was granted.
3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such
body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far
as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year,
scientific information available to that Government with
respect to whales and whaling, including the results
of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this
Article and to Article IV.
4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis
of biological data in connection with the operations
of factory ships and land stations are indispensable
to sound and constructive management of the whale
fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all
practicable measures to obtain such data.
Article IX
1. Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate
measures to ensure the application of the provisions
of this Convention and the punishment of infractions
against the said provisions in operations carried out by
persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction.
2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation
to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners
and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales
the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.
3. Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of
this Convention shall be instituted by the Government
having jurisdiction over the offence.
4. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to the
Commission full details of each infraction of the
provisions of this Convention by persons or vessels
under the jurisdiction of that Government as reported by
its inspectors. This information shall include a statement
of measures taken for dealing with the infraction and of
penalties imposed.
Article X
1. This Convention shall be ratified and the instruments of
ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of
the United States of America.
2. Any Government which has not signed this Convention
may adhere thereto after it enters into force by a
notification in writing to the Government of the United
States of America.
3. The Government of the United States of America
shall inform all other signatory Governments and all
adhering Governments of all ratifications deposited and
adherences received.
4. This Convention shall, when instruments of ratification
have been deposited by at least six signatory
Governments, which shall include the Governments of
167
the Netherlands, Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and the United States of America,
enter into force with respect to those Governments and
shall enter into force with respect to each Government
which subsequently ratifies or adheres on the date of the
deposit of its instrument of ratification or the receipt of
its notification of adherence.
5. The provisions of the Schedule shall not apply prior to
1st July, 1948. Amendments to the Schedule adopted
pursuant to Article V shall not apply prior to 1st July,
1949.
Article XI
Any Contracting Government may withdraw from this
Convention on 30th June, of any year by giving notice on
or before 1st January, of the same year to the depository
Government, which upon receipt of such a notice shall at
once communicate it to the other Contracting Governments.
Any other Contracting Government may, in like manner,
within one month of the receipt of a copy of such a notice
from the depository Government give notice of withdrawal,
so that the Convention shall cease to be in force on 30th
June, of the same year with respect to the Government
giving such notice of withdrawal.
The Convention shall bear the date on which it is opened
for signature and shall remain open for signature for a period
of fourteen days thereafter.
In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly
authorized, have signed this Convention.
Done in Washington this second day of December,
1946, in the English language, the original of which shall be
deposited in the archives of the Government of the United
States of America. The Government of the United States
of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all the
other signatory and adhering Governments.
168
iNTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING, 1946
Protocol
to the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling, Signed at Washington Under Date of December 2, 1946
The Contracting Governments to the International

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed at
Washington under date of 2nd December, 1946 which
Convention is hereinafter referred to as the 1946 Whaling
Convention, desiring to extend the application of that
Convention to helicopters and other aircraft and to include
provisions on methods of inspection among those Schedule
provisions which may be amended by the Commission,
agree as follows:
Article I
Subparagraph 3 of the Article II of the 1946 Whaling
Convention shall be amended to read as follows:
3. whale catcher means a helicopter, or other aircraft, or a
ship, used for the purpose of hunting, taking, killing, towing,
holding on to, or scouting for whales.
Article II
Paragraph 1 of Article V of the 1946 Whaling Convention
shall be amended by deleting the word and preceding
clause (h), substituting a semicolon for the period at the end
of the paragraph, and adding the following language: and
(i) methods of inspection.
Article III
1. This Protocol shall be open for signature and ratification
or for adherence on behalf of any Contracting
Government to the 1946 Whaling Convention.
2. This Protocol shall enter into force on the date upon

which instruments of ratification have been deposited
with, or written notifications of adherence have been
received by, the Government of the United States of
America on behalf of all the Contracting Governments
to the 1946 Whaling Convention.
3. The Government of the United States of America shall
inform all Governments signatory or adhering to the
1946 Whaling Convention of all ratifications deposited
and adherences received.
4. This Protocol shall bear the date on which it is opened
for signature and shall remain open for signature for
a period of fourteen days thereafter, following which
period it shall be open for adherence.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly
authorized, have signed this Protocol.
DONE in Washington this nineteenth day of November,
1956, in the English Language, the original of which shall
be deposited in the archives of the Government of the
United States of America. The Government of the United
States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to
all Governments signatory or adhering to the 1946 Whaling
Convention.
for the
Regulation of Whaling, 1946
Schedule
As amended by the Commission at the 64th Annual Meeting

Panama City, Panama, July 2012
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2012
171
for the
Regulation of Whaling, 1946
Schedule
EXPLANATORY NOTES
The Schedule printed on the following pages contains the amendments made by the Commission at its 64th Annual Meeting in July 2012. The amendments,
which are shown in italic bold type, came into effect on 4 February 2013.
In Tables 1, 2 and 3 unclassified stocks are indicated by a dash. Other positions in the Tables have been filled with a dot to aid legibility.
Numbered footnotes are integral parts of the Schedule formally adopted by the Commission. Other footnotes are editorial.
The Commission was informed in June 1992 by the ambassador in London that the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from 1948 is continued by the Russian Federation.
The Commission recorded at its 39th (1987) meeting the fact that references to names of native inhabitants in Schedule paragraph 13(b)(4) would be for
geographical purposes alone, so as not to be in contravention of Article V.2(c) of the Convention (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38:21).
I. INTERPRETATION
1. The following expressions have the meanings
respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
A. Baleen whales
baleen whale means any whale which has baleen or whale
bone in the mouth, i.e. any whale other than a toothed whale.
blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) means any whale
known as blue whale, Sibbalds rorqual, or sulphur bottom,
and including pygmy blue whale.
bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) means any
whale known as bowhead, Arctic right whale, great polar
whale, Greenland right whale, Greenland whale.
Brydes whale (Balaenoptera edeni, B. brydei) means
any whale known as Brydes whale.
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) means any whale
known as common finback, common rorqual, fin whale,
herring whale, or true fin whale.
gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) means any whale
known as gray whale, California gray, devil fish, hard head,
mussel digger, gray back, or rip sack.
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) means
any whale known as bunch, humpback, humpback whale,
humpbacked whale, hump whale or hunchbacked whale.
minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata, B.
bonaerensis) means any whale known as lesser rorqual,
little piked whale, minke whale, pike-headed whale or sharp
headed finner.
pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata) means any
whale known as southern pygmy right whale or pygmy right
whale.
right whale (Eubalaena glacialis, E. australis) means
any whale known as Atlantic right whale, Arctic right whale,
Biscayan right whale, Nordkaper, North Atlantic right
whale, North Cape whale, Pacific right whale, or southern
right whale.
sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) means any whale
known as sei whale, Rudolphis rorqual, pollack whale, or
coalfish whale.
B. Toothed whales
toothed whale means any whale which has teeth in the
jaws.
beaked whale means any whale belonging to the
genus Mesoplodon, or any whale known as Cuviers beaked
whale (Ziphius cavirostris), or Shepherds beaked whale
(Tasmacetus shepherdi).
bottlenose whale means any whale known as
Bairds beaked whale (Berardius bairdii), Arnouxs whale
(Berardius arnuxii), southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon
planifrons), or northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon
ampullatus).
killer whale (Orcinus orca) means any whale known
as killer whale or orca.
pilot whale means any whale known as long-finned
pilot whale (Globicephala melaena) or short-finned pilot
whale (G. macrorhynchus).
sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) means any
whale known as sperm whale, spermacet whale, cachalot or
pot whale.
C. General
strike means to penetrate with a weapon used for whaling.
land means to retrieve to a factory ship, land station, or
other place where a whale can be treated.
take means to flag, buoy or make fast to a whale
catcher.
lose means to either strike or take but not to land.
dauhval means any unclaimed dead whale found
floating.
lactating whale means (a) with respect to baleen whales
- a female which has any milk present in a mammary gland,
(b) with respect to sperm whales - a female which has milk
present in a mammary gland the maximum thickness (depth)
of which is 10cm or more. This measurement shall be at the
mid ventral point of the mammary gland perpendicular to
the body axis, and shall be logged to the nearest centimetre;
that is to say, any gland between 9.5cm and 10.5cm shall
be logged as 10cm. The measurement of any gland which
falls on an exact 0.5 centimetre shall be logged at the next
0.5 centimetre, e.g. 10.5cm shall be logged as 11.0cm.
172
schedule
However, notwithstanding these criteria, a whale shall not

be considered a lactating whale if scientific (histological or
other biological) evidence is presented to the appropriate
national authority establishing that the whale could not at
that point in its physical cycle have had a calf dependent on
it for milk.
small-type whaling means catching operations using
powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns hunting
exclusively for minke, bottlenose, beaked, pilot or killer
whales.
II. SEASONS
Factory Ship Operations
2. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or whale
catcher attached thereto for the purpose of taking
or treating baleen whales except minke whales,
in any waters south of 40 South Latitude except
during the period from 12th December to 7th April
following, both days inclusive.
(b) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or whale
catcher attached thereto for the purpose of taking
or treating sperm or minke whales, except as
permitted by the Contracting Governments in
accordance with sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
paragraph, and paragraph 5.
(c) Each Contracting Government shall declare for
all factory ships and whale catchers attached
thereto under its jurisdiction, an open season or
seasons not to exceed eight months out of any
period of twelve months during which the taking
or killing of sperm whales by whale catchers may
be permitted; provided that a separate open season
may be declared for each factory ship and the
whale catchers attached thereto.
(d) Each Contracting Government shall declare for all
factory ships and whale catchers attached thereto
under its jurisdiction one continuous open season
not to exceed six months out of any period of
twelve months during which the taking or killing
of minke whales by the whale catchers may be
permitted provided that:
(1) a separate open season may be declared for
each factory ship and the whale catchers
attached thereto;
(2) the open season need not necessarily include
the whole or any part of the period declared
for other baleen whales pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.
3. It is forbidden to use a factory ship which has been
used during a season in any waters south of 40 South
Latitude for the purpose of treating baleen whales,
except minke whales, in any other area except the
North Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters north of
the Equator for the same purpose within a period of one
year from the termination of that season; provided that
catch limits in the North Pacific Ocean and dependent
waters are established as provided in paragraphs 12 and
16 of this Schedule and provided that this paragraph
shall not apply to a ship which has been used during
the season solely for freezing or salting the meat and
entrails of whales intended for human food or feeding
animals.
Land Station Operations

4. (a) It is forbidden to use a whale catcher attached to a
land station for the purpose of killing or attempting
to kill baleen and sperm whales except as permitted
by the Contracting Government in accordance with
sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this paragraph.
(b) Each Contracting Government shall declare for
all land stations under its jurisdiction, and whale
catchers attached to such land stations, one open
season during which the taking or killing of
baleen whales, except minke whales, by the whale
catchers shall be permitted. Such open season shall
be for a period of not more than six consecutive
months in any period of twelve months and shall
apply to all land stations under the jurisdiction
of the Contracting Government; provided that a
separate open season may be declared for any land
station used for the taking or treating of baleen
whales, except minke whales, which is more than
1,000 miles from the nearest land station used for
the taking or treating of baleen whales, except
minke whales, under the jurisdiction of the same
Contracting Government.
(c) Each Contracting Government shall declare for all
land stations under its jurisdiction and for whale
catchers attached to such land stations, one open
season not to exceed eight continuous months in
any one period of twelve months, during which
the taking or killing of sperm whales by the
whale catchers shall be permitted; provided that
a separate open season may be declared for any
land station used for the taking or treating of sperm
whales which is more than 1,000 miles from the
nearest land station used for the taking or treating
of sperm whales under the jurisdiction of the same
(d) Each Contracting Government shall declare for all
land stations under its jurisdiction and for whale
catchers attached to such land stations one open
season not to exceed six continuous months in
any period of twelve months during which the
taking or killing of minke whales by the whale
catchers shall be permitted (such period not being
necessarily concurrent with the period declared
for other baleen whales, as provided for in subparagraph (b) of this paragraph); provided that a
separate open season may be declared for any land
station used for the taking or treating of minke
whales which is more than 1,000 miles from the
nearest land station used for the taking or treating
of minke whales under the jurisdiction of the same
Except that a separate open season may be
declared for any land station used for the taking
or treating of minke whales which is located in
an area having oceanographic conditions clearly
distinguishable from those of the area in which are
located the other land stations used for the taking
or treating of minke whales under the jurisdiction
of the same Contracting Government; but the
declaration of a separate open season by virtue
of the provisions of this sub-paragraph shall not
cause thereby the period of time covering the
open seasons declared by the same Contracting
Government to exceed nine continuous months of
any twelve months.
(e) The prohibitions contained in this paragraph shall

apply to all land stations as defined in Article II of
the Whaling Convention of 1946.
Other Operations
5. Each Contracting Government shall declare for all
whale catchers under its jurisdiction not operating
in conjunction with a factory ship or land station one
continuous open season not to exceed six months out
of any period of twelve months during which the taking
or killing of minke whales by such whale catchers
may be permitted. Notwithstanding this paragraph one
continuous open season not to exceed nine months may
be implemented so far as Greenland is concerned.
III. CAPTURE
6. The killing for commercial purposes of whales, except
minke whales using the cold grenade harpoon shall be
forbidden from the beginning of the 1980/81 pelagic
and 1981 coastal seasons. The killing for commercial
purposes of minke whales using the cold grenade
harpoon shall be forbidden from the beginning of the
1982/83 pelagic and the 1983 coastal seasons.*
7. (a) In accordance with Article V(1)(c) of the
Convention, commercial whaling, whether
by pelagic operations or from land stations, is
prohibited in a region designated as the Indian
Ocean Sanctuary. This comprises the waters of the
Northern Hemisphere from the coast of Africa to
100E, including the Red and Arabian Seas and
the Gulf of Oman; and the waters of the Southern
Hemisphere in the sector from 20E to 130E, with
the Southern boundary set at 55S. This prohibition
applies irrespective of such catch limits for baleen
or toothed whales as may from time to time be
determined by the Commission. This prohibition
shall be reviewed by the Commission at its Annual
Meeting in 2002.
(b) In accordance with Article V(1)(c) of the Convention, commercial whaling, whether by pelagic
operations or from land stations, is prohibited
in a region designated as the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary. This Sanctuary comprises the waters
of the Southern Hemisphere southwards of the
following line: starting from 40 degrees S, 50
degrees W; thence due east to 20 degrees E;
thence due south to 55 degrees S; thence due
east to 130 degrees E; thence due north to 40
degrees S; thence due east to 130 degrees W;
thence due south to 60 degrees S; thence due east
to 50 degrees W; thence due north to the point of
beginning. This prohibition applies irrespective
of the conservation status of baleen and toothed
whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as may from
time to time be determined by the Commission.
173
However, this prohibition shall be reviewed ten

years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten
year intervals, and could be revised at such times by
the Commission. Nothing in this sub-paragraph is
intended to prejudice the special legal and political
status of Antarctica.**+
Area Limits for Factory Ships
8. It is forbidden to use a factory ship or whale catcher
attached thereto, for the purpose of taking or treating
baleen whales, except minke whales, in any of the
following areas:
(a) in the waters north of 66N, except that from 150E
eastwards as far as 140W, the taking or killing of
baleen whales by a factory ship or whale catcher
shall be permitted between 66N and 72N;
(b) in the Atlantic Ocean and its dependent waters
north of 40S;
(c) in the Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters east
of 150W between 40S and 35N;
(d) in the Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters west
of 150W between 40S and 20N;
(e) in the Indian Ocean and its dependent waters north
of 40S.
Classification of Areas and Divisions
9. (a) Classification of Areas
Areas relating to Southern Hemisphere baleen
whales except Brydes whales are those waters
between the ice-edge and the Equator and between
the meridians of longitude listed in Table 1.
(b) Classification of Divisions
Divisions relating to Southern Hemisphere sperm
whales are those waters between the ice-edge and
the Equator and between the meridians of longitude
listed in Table 3.
(c) Geographical boundaries in the North Atlantic
The geographical boundaries for the fin, minke and
sei whale stocks in the North Atlantic are:
FIN WHALE STOCKS
NOVA SCOTIA
South and West of a line through:
47N 54W, 46N 5430W,
46N 42W, 20N 42W.
NEWFOUNDLAND-LABRADOR
West of a line through:
75N 7330W, 69N 59W, 61N 59W,
5220N 42W, 46N 42W and
North of a line through:
46N 42W, 46N 5430W, 47N 54W.
WEST GREENLAND
East of a line through:
75N 7330W, 69N 59W,
61N 59W, 5220N 42W,
and West of a line through
5220N 42W, 59N 42W,
59N 44W, Kap Farvel.
*The Governments of Brazil, Iceland, Japan, Norway and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lodged objections to the second sentence of
paragraph 6 within the prescribed period. For all other Contracting Governments this sentence came into force on 8 March 1982. Norway withdrew its
objection on 9 July 1985 and Brazil on 8 January 1992. Iceland withdrew from the Convention with effect from 30 June 1992. The objections of Japan and
the Russian Federation not having been withdrawn, this sentence is not binding upon these governments.
At its 54th Annual Meeting in 2002, the Commission agreed to continue this prohibition but did not discuss whether or not it should set a time when it should
be reviewed again.
**The Government of Japan lodged an objection within the prescribed period to paragraph 7(b) to the extent that it applies to the Antarctic minke whale stocks.
The Government of the Russian Federation also lodged an objection to paragraph 7(b) within the prescribed period but withdrew it on 26 October 1994. For
all Contracting Governments except Japan paragraph 7(b) came into force on 6 December 1994.
+
Paragraph 7(b) contains a provision for review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary ten years after its initial adoption. Paragraph 7(b) was adopted at the 46th
(1994) Annual Meeting. Therefore, the first review is due in 2004.
174
schedule
EAST GREENLAND-ICELAND
Kap Farvel (South Greenland),
59N 44W, 59N 42W, 20N 42W,
and West of a line through:
20N 18W, 60N 18W, 68N 3E,
74N 3E, and South of 74N.
NORTH NORWAY
North and East of a line through:
74N 22W, 74N 3E, 68N 3E,
67N 0, 67N 14E.
WEST NORWAY-FAROE ISLANDS
South of a line through:
67N 14E, 67N 0, 60N 18W,
and North of a line through:
61N 16W, 61N 0, Thyborn
(Western entrance to Limfjorden, Denmark).
SPAIN-PORTUGAL-BRITISH ISLES
South of a line through:
Thyborn (Denmark), 61N 0, 61N 16W,
and East of a line through:
63N 11W, 60N 18W, 22N 18W.
(d) Geographical boundaries in the North Pacific

The geographical boundaries for the sperm, Brydes
and minke whale stocks in the North Pacific are:
SPERM WHALE STOCKS
WESTERN DIVISION
West of a line from the ice-edge south along the 180 meridian
of longitude to 180, 50N, then east along the 50N parallel of
latitude to 160W, 50N, then south along the 160W meridian
of longitude to 160W, 40N, then east along the 40N parallel of
latitude to 150W, 40N, then south along the 150W meridian
of longitude to the Equator.
EASTERN DIVISION
East of the line described above.
BRYDES WHALE STOCKS

EAST CHINA SEA
West of the Ryukyu Island chain.
EASTERN
East of 160W (excluding the Peruvian stock area).
WESTERN
West of 160W (excluding the East China Sea stock area).
MINKE WHALE STOCKS

CANADIAN EAST COAST
75N 7330W, 69N 59W, 61N 59W,
5220N 42W, 20N 42W.
CENTRAL
59N 44W, 59N 42W, 20N 42W,
20N 18W, 60N 18W, 68N 3E,
WEST GREENLAND
75N 7330W, 69N 59W, 61N 59W,
5220N 42W, and
5220N 42W, 59N 42W,
59N 44W, Kap Farvel.
NORTHEASTERN
20N 18W, 60N 18W, 68N 3E, 74N 3E,
74N 3E, 74N 22W.
SEI WHALE STOCKS

NOVA SCOTIA
South and West of a line through:
47N 54W, 46N 5430W, 46N 42W,
20N 42W.
ICELAND-DENMARK STRAIT
59N 44W, 59N 42W, 20N 42W,
20N 18W, 60N 18W, 68N 3E,
EASTERN
20N 18W, 60N 18W, 68N 3E, 74N 3E,
74N 3E, 74N 22W.
MINKE WHALE STOCKS

SEA OF JAPAN-YELLOW SEA-EAST CHINA SEA
West of a line through the Philippine Islands, Taiwan, Ryukyu
Islands, Kyushu, Honshu, Hokkaido and Sakhalin Island, north
of the Equator.
OKHOTSK SEA-WEST PACIFIC
East of the Sea of Japan-Yellow Sea- East China Sea stock and
west of 180, north of the Equator.
REMAINDER
East of the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock, north of the Equator.
(e) Geographical boundaries for Brydes whale stocks

in the Southern Hemisphere
SOUTHERN INDIAN OCEAN
20E to 130E,
South of the Equator.
SOLOMON ISLANDS
150E to 170E,
20S to the Equator.
PERUVIAN
110W to the South American coast,
10S to 10N.
EASTERN SOUTH PACIFIC
150W to 70W,
South of the Equator (excluding the Peruvian stock area).
WESTERN SOUTH PACIFIC
130E to 150W,
South of the Equator (excluding the Solomon Islands stock
area).
SOUTH ATLANTIC
70W to 20E,
South of the Equator (excluding the South African inshore stock
area).
SOUTH AFRICAN INSHORE
South African coast west of 27E and out to the 200 metre
isobath.
Classification of Stocks
10. All stocks of whales shall be classified in one of three
categories according to the advice of the Scientific
Committee as follows:
(a) A Sustained Management Stock (SMS) is a stock
which is not more than 10 per cent of Maximum
Sustainable Yield (hereinafter referred to as MSY)
stock level below MSY stock level, and not more
than 20 per cent above that level; MSY being
determined on the basis of the number of whales.
When a stock has remained at a stable level
for a considerable period under a regime of
approximately constant catches, it shall be
classified as a Sustained Management Stock in the
absence of any positive evidence that it should be
otherwise classified.
Commercial whaling shall be permitted on
Sustained Management Stocks according to the
advice of the Scientific Committee. These stocks
are listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
For stocks at or above the MSY stock level,
the permitted catch shall not exceed 90 per cent of
the MSY. For stocks between the MSY stock level
and 10 per cent below that level, the permitted
catch shall not exceed the number of whales
obtained by taking 90 per cent of the MSY and
reducing that number by 10 per cent for every 1
per cent by which the stock falls short of the MSY
stock level.
(b) An Initial Management Stock (IMS) is a stock
more than 20 per cent of MSY stock level above
MSY stock level. Commercial whaling shall be
permitted on Initial Management Stocks according
to the advice of the Scientific Committee as to
measures necessary to bring the stocks to the MSY
stock level and then optimum level in an efficient
manner and without risk of reducing them below
175
this level. The permitted catch for such stocks will

not be more than 90 per cent of MSY as far as this
is known, or, where it will be more appropriate,
catching effort shall be limited to that which will
take 90 per cent of MSY in a stock at MSY stock
level.
In the absence of any positive evidence that a
continuing higher percentage will not reduce the
stock below the MSY stock level no more than 5
per cent of the estimated initial exploitable stock
shall be taken in any one year. Exploitation should
not commence until an estimate of stock size has
been obtained which is satisfactory in the view
of the Scientific Committee. Stocks classified as
Initial Management Stock are listed in Tables 1, 2
and 3 of this Schedule.
(c) A Protection Stock (PS) is a stock which is below
10 per cent of MSY stock level below MSY stock
level.
There shall be no commercial whaling on
Protection Stocks. Stocks so classified are listed in
Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph
10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking,
killing or treating of whales, except minke whales,
by factory ships or whale catchers attached to
factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm
whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except
minke whales.
(e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph
10, catch limits for the killing for commercial
purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986
coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and
thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be
kept under review, based upon the best scientific
advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission
will undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the effects of this decision on whale stocks and
consider modification of this provision and the
establishment of other catch limits.*#
*The Governments of Japan, Norway, Peru and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lodged objection to paragraph 10(e) within the prescribed period. For
all other Contracting Governments this paragraph came into force on 3 February 1983. Peru withdrew its objection on 22 July 1983. The Government of Japan
withdrew its objections with effect from 1 May 1987 with respect to commercial pelagic whaling; from 1 October 1987 with respect to commercial coastal
whaling for minke and Brydes whales; and from 1 April 1988 with respect to commercial coastal sperm whaling. The objections of Norway and the Russian
Federation not having been withdrawn, the paragraph is not binding upon these Governments.
Icelands instrument of adherence to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Protocol to the Convention deposited on 10 October
2002 states that Iceland adheres to the aforesaid Convention and Protocol with a reservation with respect to paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule attached to the
Convention. The instrument further states the following:
Notwithstanding this, the Government of Iceland will not authorise whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter,
will not authorise such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the IWC on the RMS. This does not apply, however, in case of the
so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule not being lifted within a reasonable time after
the completion of the RMS. Under no circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes be authorised without a sound scientific basis and an effective
management and enforcement scheme.
#The Governments of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, San Marino,
Spain, Sweden, UK and the USA have lodged objections to Icelands reservation to paragraph 10(e).
Catch
limit
Classification
Catch
limit
MINKE
.
.
.
.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS*
.
.
.
IMS
.
PS
.
.
.
.
PS
IMS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
.
0
.
-
0
.
.
.
.
.
PS
.
.
-
.
0
.
.
.
0
.
0
.
0
.
.
.
.
0
0
.
.
.
0
.
PS
.
.
.
.
PS
.
SMS
.
.
.
.
.
PS
.
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Classification
FIN
0
.
0
0
.
.
.
162
0
.
0
.
0
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Catch
limit
.
.
.
.
.
PS
PS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS
.
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Classification
BLUE
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Catch
limit
.
.
.
.
.
PS
PS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS
.
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Classification
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Catch
limit
RIGHT, BOWHEAD,
HUMPBACK
.
.
.
.
.
PS
PS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS
.
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
Classification
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Catch
limit
PYGMY RIGHT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SMS
PS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Classification
GRAY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.1
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Catch
limit
Available to be taken by aborigines or a Contracting Government on behalf of aborigines pursuant to paragraph 13(b)2.
Available to be struck by aborigines pursuant to paragraph 13(b)3. Catch limit for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
In IWC/62 in Agadir, Morocco, June 2010, Denmark and Greenland agreed to voluntarily reduce further the catch limit for the West Greenland stock of fin whales from 16 to 10 for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
+
The catch limits of zero introduced into Table 1 as editorial amendments as a result of the coming into effect of paragraph 10(e) are not binding upon the governments of the countries which lodged and have not withdrawn
objections to the said paragraph.
*The Government of Norway presented objection to the classification of the Northeastern Atlantic stock of minke whales as a Protection Stock within the prescribed period. This classification came into force on 30 January 1986
but is not binding on the Government of Norway.
The Government of the Czech Republic lodged an objection within the prescribed period to the amendments to the Schedule arising from the 64th Annual Meeting of the Commission. These amendments related to the
establishment of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling catch numbers for the period 2013-2018 in paragraph 13(b) subparagraphs (1), (2) and (4) and amendments to the dates of the coastal whaling seasons given in paragraphs 11 and
12 and Tables 1, 2 and 3. For all other Contracting Governments, these provisions came into force on 4 February 2013. The Czech Republic lodged similar objections to the Schedule amendments arising from the 60th, 61st, 62nd
and 63rd Annual Meetings of the Commission. These objections to the amendments of the 60th, 61st and 62nd meetings were withdrawn by the Government of the Czech Republic on 8 June 2011.
NORTH ATLANTIC
Whole region
West Greenland Stock
Newfoundland-Labrador Stock
Canadian East Coast Stock
Nova Scotia Stock
Central Stock
East Greenland-Iceland Stock
Iceland-Denmark Strait Stock
Spain-Portugal-British Isles
Stock
Northeastern Stock
West Norway-Faroe Islands Stock
North Norway Stock
Eastern Stock
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE-2013 season

ARCTIC
.
NORTH PACIFIC
Whole region
PS
Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific Stock
.
Sea of Japan-Yellow Sea-East
China Sea Stock
.
Remainder
.
Eastern Stock
.
Western Stock
.
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE-2012/2013 pelagic season and 2013 coastal season

Area
I
120W-60W
PS
0
0
II
60W- 0
PS
0
0
III
0- 70E
PS
0
0
IV
70E-130E
PS
0
0
V
130E- 170W
PS
0
0
VI
170W-120W
PS
0
0
Total catch not to exceed:
Classification
SEI
Table 1
BALEEN WHALE STOCK CLASSIFICATIONS AND CATCH LIMITS+ (excluding Brydes whales).
176
schedule
177
Table 2
Brydes whale stock classifications and catch limits.+
Classification
Catch limit
IMS
IMS
IMS
IMS
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH PACIFIC-2013 season

Eastern Stock
Western Stock
East China Sea Stock
IMS
IMS
PS
0
0
0
NORTH ATLANTIC-2013 season
IMS

South Atlantic Stock
Southern Indian Ocean Stock
South African Inshore Stock
Solomon Islands Stock
Western South Pacific Stock
Eastern South Pacific Stock
Peruvian Stock
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN-2013 season

+
The catch limits of zero introduced in Table 2 as editorial amendments as a result of the coming into effect of paragraph 10(e)
are not binding upon the governments of the countries which lodged and have not withdrawn objections to the said paragraph.
See footnote to Table 1.
Table 3
Toothed whale stock classifications and catch limits.+
Division
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Longitudes
60W-30W
30W-20E
20E-60E
60E-90E
90-130E
130E-160E
160E-170W
170W-100W
100W-60W
Classification
-
SPERM
Catch limit
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE-2013season
NORTH PACIFIC
Western Division
Eastern Division
PS
-
01
0
NORTH ATLANTIC
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN
0
BOTTLENOSE
NORTH ATLANTIC
PS
No whales may be taken from this stock until catch limits including any limitations on size and sex are established by the
Commission.
+
The catch limits of zero introduced in Table 3 as editorial amendments as a result of the coming into effect of paragraph 10(e)
are not binding upon the governments of the countries which lodged and have not withdrawn objections to the said paragraph.
C:\Andrea\AC Annual Report 2012\Schedule Tabs 2-3.doc
06 August 2012
16:06
178
schedule
Baleen Whale Catch Limits

11. The number of baleen whales taken in the Southern
Hemisphere in the 2012/2013 pelagic season and the
2013 coastal season shall not exceed the limits shown
in Tables 1 and 2.
12. The number of baleen whales taken in the North
Pacific Ocean and dependent waters in 2013 and in
the North Atlantic Ocean in 2013 shall not exceed the
limits shown in Tables 1 and 2.
13. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 10,
catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling
to satisfy aboriginal subsistence need for the
1984 whaling season and each whaling season
thereafter shall be established in accordance with
the following principles:
(1) For stocks at or above MSY level, aboriginal
subsistence catches shall be permitted so
long as total removals do not exceed 90 per
cent of MSY.
(2) For stocks below the MSY level but
above a certain minimum level, aboriginal
subsistence catches shall be permitted so
long as they are set at levels which will allow
whale stocks to move to the MSY level.1
(3) The above provisions will be kept under
review, based upon the best scientific advice,
and by 1990 at the latest the Commission
will undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the effects of these provisions on whale
stocks and consider modification.
(4) For aboriginal whaling conducted under
subparagraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of
this paragraph, it is forbidden to strike, take
or kill calves or any whale accompanied by a
calf. For aboriginal whaling conducted under
subparagraphs (b)(4) of this paragraph, it
is forbidden to strike, take or kill suckling
calves or female whales accompanied by
calves.
(5) All aboriginal whaling shall be conducted
under national legislation that accords with
this paragraph.
(b) Catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling
are as follows:
(1) The taking of bowhead whales from the
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock by
aborigines is permitted, but only when the
meat and products of such whales are to be
used exclusively for local consumption by
the aborigines and further provided that:
(i) For the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
2017 and 2018, the number of bowhead
whales landed shall not exceed 336.
For each of these years the number of
bowhead whales struck shall not exceed
67, except that any unused portion of a
strike quota from any year (including
15 unused strikes from the 2008-2012
quota) shall be carried forward and

added to the strike quotas of any
subsequent years, provided that no
more than 15 strikes shall be added to
the strike quota for any one year.
(ii) This provision shall be reviewed annually by the Commission in light of the
advice of the Scientific Committee.
(2) The taking of gray whales from the Eastern
stock in the North Pacific is permitted,
but only by aborigines or a Contracting
Government on behalf of aborigines, and
then only when the meat and products of
such whales are to be used exclusively for
local consumption by the aborigines.
(i) For the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017 and 2018, the number of gray
whales taken in accordance with this
sub-paragraph shall not exceed 744,
provided that the number of gray
whales taken in any one of the years
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018
shall not exceed 140.
(ii) This provision shall be reviewed annually by the Commission in light of the
advice of the Scientific Committee.
(3) The taking by aborigines of minke whales
from the West Greenland and Central stocks
and fin whales from the West Greenland
stock and bowhead whales from the
West Greenland feeding aggregation and
humpback whales from the West Greenland
feeding aggregation is permitted and then
only when the meat and products are to be
used exclusively for local consumption.
(i) The number of fin whales struck from
the West Greenland stock in accordance
with this sub-paragraph shall not
exceed 16 in each of the years 2010,
2011 and 2012.$
(ii) The number of minke whales struck
from the Central stock in accordance
with this sub-paragraph shall not
exceed 12 in each of the years 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, except
that any unused portion of the quota
for each year shall be carried forward
from that year and added to the quota of
any subsequent years, provided that no
more than 3 shall be added to the quota
for any one year.$
(iii) The number of minke whales struck
from the West Greenland stock shall
not exceed 178 in each of the years
2010, 2011 and 2012, except that any
unused portion of the quota for each
year shall be carried forward from that
year and added to the strike quota of
any of the subsequent years, provided

The Commission, on advice of the Scientific Committee, shall establish as far as possible (a) a minimum stock level for each stock below which whales shall
not be taken, and (b) a rate of increase towards the MSY level for each stock. The Scientific Committee shall advise on a minimum stock level and on a range
of rates of increase towards the MSY level under different catch regimes.
At IWC/62 in Agadir, Morocco, June 2010, Denmark and Greenland agreed to voluntarily reduce further the catch limit for the West Greenland stock of fin
whales from 16 to 10 for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
$
At the Commissions 64th Annual Meeting held in 2012 a proposal by Denmark (document number IWC/64/12) regarding the Greenland Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling hunts for the period 2013 to 2018 failed to gain the necessary three-quarters majority support.
that no more than 15 strikes shall be

added to the strike quota for any one
year. This provision will be reviewed
if new scientific data become available
within the 5 year period and if necessary
amended on basis of the advice of the
Scientific Committee.$
(iv) The number of bowhead whales struck
off West Greenland in accordance with
this sub-paragraph shall not exceed 2
in each of the years 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011 and 2012, except that any unused
portion of the quota for each year shall
be carried forward from that year and
added to the quota of any subsequent
years, provided that no more than 2
shall be added to the quota for any one
year. This provision will be reviewed
if new scientific data become available
within the 5 year period and if necessary
amended on basis of the advice of the
Scientific Committee.$
(v) The number of humpback whales struck
off West Greenland in accordance with
this sub-paragraph shall not exceed
9 in each of the years 2010, 2011 and
2012, except that any unused portion of
the quota for each year shall be carried
forward from that year and added to the
strike quota of any of the subsequent
years, provided that no more than 2
strikes shall be added to the strike quota
for any one year. This provision will be
reviewed if new scientific data become
available within the remaining quota
period and if necessary amended on
the basis of the advice of the Scientific
Committee.$
(4) For the seasons 2013-2018 the number
of humpback whales to be taken by the
Bequians of St. Vincent and The Grenadines
shall not exceed 24. The meat and products
of such whales are to be used exclusively for
local consumption in St. Vincent and The
Grenadines.
14. It is forbidden to take or kill suckling calves or female
whales accompanied by calves.
Baleen Whale Size Limits1
15. (a) It is forbidden to take or kill any sei or Brydes
whales below 40 feet (12.2 metres) in length
except that sei and Brydes whales of not less than
35 feet (10.7 metres) may be taken for delivery
to land stations, provided that the meat of such
whales is to be used for local consumption as
human or animal food.
(b) It is forbidden to take or kill any fin whales below
57 feet (17.4 metres) in length in the Southern
Hemisphere, and it is forbidden to take or kill
fin whales below 55 feet (16.8 metres) in the
Northern Hemisphere; except that fin whales of
not less than 55 feet (16.8 metres) may be taken
in the Southern Hemisphere for delivery to land
stations and fin whales of not less than 50 feet (15.2
179
metres) may be taken in the Northern Hemisphere

for delivery to land stations, provided that, in each
case the meat of such whales is to be used for local
consumption as human or animal food.
Sperm Whale Catch Limits
16. Catch limits for sperm whales of both sexes shall be
set at zero in the Southern Hemisphere for the 1981/82
pelagic season and 1982 coastal seasons and following
seasons, and at zero in the Northern Hemisphere for
the 1982 and following coastal seasons; except that the
catch limits for the 1982 coastal season and following
seasons in the Western Division of the North Pacific
shall remain undetermined and subject to decision by
the Commission following special or annual meetings
of the Scientific Committee. These limits shall remain
in force until such time as the Commission, on the basis
of the scientific information which will be reviewed
annually, decides otherwise in accordance with the
procedures followed at that time by the Commission.
17. It is forbidden to take or kill suckling calves or female
whales accompanied by calves.
Sperm Whale Size Limits
18. (a) It is forbidden to take or kill any sperm whales
below 30 feet (9.2 metres) in length except in
the North Atlantic Ocean where it is forbidden to
take or kill any sperm whales below 35 feet (10.7
metres).
(b) It is forbidden to take or kill any sperm whale over
45 feet (13.7 metres) in length in the Southern
Hemisphere north of 40 South Latitude during
the months of October to January inclusive.
(c) It is forbidden to take or kill any sperm whale over
45 feet (13.7 metres) in length in the North Pacific
Ocean and dependent waters south of 40 North
Latitude during the months of March to June
inclusive.
IV. TREATMENT
19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station
for the purpose of treating any whales which are
classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10 or
are taken in contravention of paragraphs 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 of this Schedule,
whether or not taken by whale catchers under the
jurisdiction of a Contracting Government.
(b) All other whales taken, except minke whales, shall
be delivered to the factory ship or land station and
all parts of such whales shall be processed by
boiling or otherwise, except the internal organs,
whale bone and flippers of all whales, the meat
of sperm whales and parts of whales intended for
human food or feeding animals. A Contracting
Government may in less developed regions
exceptionally permit treating of whales without
use of land stations, provided that such whales are
fully utilised in accordance with this paragraph.
(c) Complete treatment of the carcases of dauhval
and of whales used as fenders will not be required
in cases where the meat or bone of such whales is
in bad condition.

At the Commissions 64th Annual Meeting held in 2012 a proposal by Denmark (document number IWC/64/12) regarding the Greenland Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling hunts for the period 2013 to 2018 failed to gain the necessary three-quarters majority support.
180
schedule
20. (a) The taking of whales for treatment by a factory

ship shall be so regulated or restricted by the
master or person in charge of the factory ship
that no whale carcase (except of a whale used as
a fender, which shall be processed as soon as is
reasonably practicable) shall remain in the sea for
a longer period than thirty-three hours from the
time of killing to the time when it is hauled up for
treatment.
(b) Whales taken by all whale catchers, whether for
factory ships or land stations, shall be clearly
marked so as to identify the catcher and to indicate
the order of catching.
V. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
21. (a) There shall be maintained on each factory ship at
least two inspectors of whaling for the purpose of
maintaining twenty-four hour inspection provided
that at least one such inspector shall be maintained
on each catcher functioning as a factory ship.
These inspectors shall be appointed and paid
by the Government having jurisdiction over the
factory ship; provided that inspectors need not be
appointed to ships which, apart from the storage
of products, are used during the season solely for
freezing or salting the meat and entrails of whales
intended for human food or feeding animals.
(b) Adequate inspection shall be maintained at each
land station. The inspectors serving at each
land station shall be appointed and paid by the
Government having jurisdiction over the land
station.
(c) There shall be received such observers as the
member countries may arrange to place on factory
ships and land stations or groups of land stations
of other member countries. The observers shall be
appointed by the Commission acting through its
Secretary and paid by the Government nominating
them.
22. Gunners and crews of factory ships, land stations,
and whale catchers, shall be engaged on such terms
that their remuneration shall depend to a considerable
extent upon such factors as the species, size and yield
of whales and not merely upon the number of the
whales taken. No bonus or other remuneration shall
be paid to the gunners or crews of whale catchers in
respect of the taking of lactating whales.
23. Whales must be measured when at rest on deck or
platform after the hauling out wire and grasping device
have been released, by means of a tape-measure made
of a non-stretching material. The zero end of the tapemeasure shall be attached to a spike or stable device
to be positioned on the deck or platform abreast of
one end of the whale. Alternatively the spike may be
stuck into the tail fluke abreast of the apex of the notch.
The tape-measure shall be held taut in a straight line
parallel to the deck and the whales body, and other
than in exceptional circumstances along the whales
back, and read abreast of the other end of the whale.
The ends of the whale for measurement purposes shall
be the tip of the upper jaw, or in sperm whales the most
forward part of the head, and the apex of the notch
between the tail flukes.
Measurements shall be logged to the nearest foot or

0.1 metre. That is to say, any whale between 75 feet 6
inches and 76 feet 6 inches shall be logged as 76 feet,
and any whale between 76 feet 6 inches and 77 feet 6
inches shall be logged as 77 feet. Similarly, any whale
between 10.15 metres and 10.25 metres shall be logged
as 10.2 metres, and any whale between 10.25 metres
and 10.35 metres shall be logged as 10.3 metres. The
measurement of any whale which falls on an exact half
foot or 0.05 metre shall be logged at the next half foot
or 0.05 metre, e.g. 76 feet 6 inches precisely shall be
logged as 77 feet and 10.25 metres precisely shall be
logged as 10.3 metres.
VI. INFORMATION REQUIRED
24. (a) All whale catchers operating in conjunction with
a factory ship shall report by radio to the factory
ship:
(1) the time when each whale is taken
(2) its species, and
(3) its marking effected pursuant to paragraph
20(b).
(b) The information specified in sub-paragraph (a)
of this paragraph shall be entered immediately by
a factory ship in a permanent record which shall
be available at all times for examination by the
whaling inspectors; and in addition there shall be
entered in such permanent record the following
information as soon as it becomes available:
(1) time of hauling up for treatment
(2) length, measured pursuant to paragraph 23
(3) sex
(4) if female, whether lactating
(5) length and sex of foetus, if present, and
(6) a full explanation of each infraction.
(c) A record similar to that described in sub-paragraph
(b) of this paragraph shall be maintained by land
stations, and all of the information mentioned in
the said sub-paragraph shall be entered therein as
soon as available.
(d) A record similar to that described in sub-paragraph
(b) of this paragraph shall be maintained by
small-type whaling operations conducted
from shore or by pelagic fleets, and all of this
information mentioned in the said sub-paragraph
shall be entered therein as soon as available.
25. (a) All Contracting Governments shall report to the
Commission for all whale catchers operating in
conjunction with factory ships and land stations
the following information:
(1) methods used to kill each whale, other than
a harpoon, and in particular compressed air;
(2) number of whales struck but lost.
(b) A record similar to that described in sub-paragraph
(a) of this paragraph shall be maintained by vessels
engaged in small-type whaling operations
and by native peoples taking species listed in
paragraph 1, and all the information mentioned in
the said sub-paragraph shall be entered therein as
soon as available, and forwarded by Contracting
Governments to the Commission.
26. (a) Notification shall be given in accordance with
the provisions of Article VII of the Convention,
within two days after the end of each calendar
week, of data on the number of baleen whales
by species taken in any waters south of 40

South Latitude by all factory ships or whale
catchers attached thereto under the jurisdiction
of each Contracting Government, provided that
when the number of each of these species taken
is deemed by the Secretary to the International
Whaling Commission to have reached 85 per
cent of whatever total catch limit is imposed by
the Commission notification shall be given as
aforesaid at the end of each day of data on the
number of each of these species taken.
(b) If it appears that the maximum catches of whales
permitted by paragraph 11 may be reached before 7
April of any year, the Secretary to the International
Whaling Commission shall determine, on the
basis of the data provided, the date on which the
maximum catch of each of these species shall be
deemed to have been reached and shall notify the
master of each factory ship and each Contracting
Government of that date not less than four days
in advance thereof. The taking or attempting to
take baleen whales, so notified, by factory ships
or whale catchers attached thereto shall be illegal
in any waters south of 40 South Latitude after
midnight of the date so determined.
(c) Notification shall be given in accordance with the
provisions of Article VII of the Convention of
each factory ship intending to engage in whaling
operations in any waters south of 40 South
Latitude.
27. Notification shall be given in accordance with the
provisions of Article VII of the Convention with regard
to all factory ships and catcher ships of the following
statistical information:
(a) concerning the number of whales of each species
taken, the number thereof lost, and the number
treated at each factory ship or land station, and
(b) as to the aggregate amounts of oil of each grade
and quantities of meal, fertiliser (guano), and
other products derived from them, together with
(c) particulars with respect to each whale treated in the
factory ship, land station or small-type whaling
operations as to the date and approximate latitude
and longitude of taking, the species and sex of the
whale, its length and, if it contains a foetus, the
length and sex, if ascertainable, of the foetus.
The data referred to in (a) and (c) above shall be
verified at the time of the tally and there shall also be
notification to the Commission of any information
which may be collected or obtained concerning the
calving grounds and migration of whales.
28. (a) Notification shall be given in accordance with the
provisions of Article VII of the Convention with
regard to all factory ships and catcher ships of the
following statistical information:
(1) the name and gross tonnage of each factory
ship,
(2) for each catcher ship attached to a factory
ship or land station:
(i) the dates on which each is commissioned
and ceases whaling for the season,
(ii) the number of days on which each is
at sea on the whaling grounds each
season,
181
(iii) the gross tonnage, horsepower, length

and other characteristics of each;
vessels used only as tow boats should
be specified.
(3) A list of the land stations which were in
operation during the period concerned, and
the number of miles searched per day by
aircraft, if any.
(b) The information required under paragraph (a)(2)
(iii) should also be recorded together with the
following information, in the log book format
shown in Appendix A, and forwarded to the
Commission:
(1) where possible the time spent each day
on different components of the catching
operation,
(2) any modifications of the measures in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i)-(iii) or (b)(1) or data
from other suitable indicators of fishing
effort for small-type whaling operations.
29. (a) Where possible all factory ships and land stations
shall collect from each whale taken and report on:
(1) both ovaries or the combined weight of both
testes,
(2) at least one ear plug, or one tooth (preferably
first mandibular).
(b) Where possible similar collections to those
described in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph
shall be undertaken and reported by small-type
whaling operations conducted from shore or by
pelagic fleets.
(c) All specimens collected under sub-paragraphs (a)
and (b) shall be properly labelled with platform or
other identification number of the whale and be
appropriately preserved.
(d) Contracting Governments shall arrange for the
analysis as soon as possible of the tissue samples
and specimens collected under sub-paragraphs
(a) and (b) and report to the Commission on the
results of such analyses.
30. A Contracting Government shall provide the Secretary
to the International Whaling Commission with
proposed scientific permits before they are issued and
in sufficient time to allow the Scientific Committee to
review and comment on them. The proposed permits
should specify:
(a) objectives of the research;
(b) number, sex, size and stock of the animals to be
taken;
(c) opportunities for participation in the research by
scientists of other nations; and
(d) possible effect on conservation of stock.
Proposed permits shall be reviewed and commented
on by the Scientific Committee at Annual Meetings
when possible. When permits would be granted prior
to the next Annual Meeting, the Secretary shall send
the proposed permits to members of the Scientific
Committee by mail for their comment and review.
Preliminary results of any research resulting from the
permits should be made available at the next Annual
Meeting of the Scientific Committee.
31. A Contracting Government shall transmit to the
Commission copies of all its official laws and
regulations relating to whales and whaling and changes
in such laws and regulations.
182
schedule
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING, 1946

SCHEDULE APPENDIX A
TITLE PAGE
(one logbook per catcher per season)
Catcher name Year built
Attached to expedition/land station .
Season
Overall length Wooden/steel hull
Gross tonnage
Type of engine.. H.P.
Maximum speed Average searching speed
Asdic set, make and model no.
Date of installation
Make and size of cannon
Type of first harpoon used Explosive/electric/non-explosive
Type of killer harpoon used
Length and type of forerunner
Type of whaleline
Height of barrel above sea level
Speedboat used, Yes/No
Name of Captain
Number of years experience
Name of gunner
Number of years experience
Number of crew
183
Rules of Procedure
and
As amended by the Commission at the 64th Annual Meeting, July 2012

(amendments are shown in bold italics)
Rules of Procedure.187
Financial Regulations...192
Rules of Debate..195
Rules of Procedure of the Technical Committee196
Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee197
187
Rules of Procedure
A. Representation
1. A Government party to the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 (hereafter referred to
as the Convention) shall have the right to appoint one
Commissioner and shall furnish the Secretary of the
Commission with the name of its Commissioner and
his/her designation and notify the Secretary promptly
of any changes in the appointment. The Secretary shall
inform other Commissioners of such appointment.
2. In addition to the Commissioner, each Contracting
Government is invited to establish an additional means
of communication between the Chair and Secretary of
the Commission and that Government by designating
an Alternate Commissioner or by creating a focal or
contact point (which could be an e-mail address). The
details shall be communicated to the Secretary through
recognised diplomatic channels. Contact details of the
Commissioner, Alternate Commissioner or the focal or
contact point shall also be posted on the Commissions
public web site.
B. Meetings
1. The Commission shall hold a regular [ ] Biennial
Meeting in such place as the Commission may
determine. Any Contracting Government desiring to
extend an invitation to the Commission to meet in that
country shall give formal notice two years in advance.
A formal offer should include:
(a) which meetings it covers, i.e. Scientific Committee,
Commission sub-groups, [ ] Biennial Commission
meeting;
(b) a proposed time window within which the meeting
will take place; and
(c) a timetable for finalising details of the exact timing
and location of the meeting.
Attendance by a majority of the members of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum. Special Meetings
of the Commission may be called at the direction
of the Chair after consultation with the Contracting
Governments and Commissioners.
2. Before the end of each [ ] Biennial Meeting, the
Commission shall decide on: (1) the length of the
next [ ] Biennial Commission Meeting and associated
meetings [ ] and (2) which of the Commissions subgroups need to meet.
3. The Scientific Committee shall meet annually. Other
committees and sub-committees shall meet biennially,
prior to the meeting of the Commission. However,
this does not preclude intersessional work by these
committees and sub-groups from continuing.
4. The Bureau shall meet in those years in which the
Commission does not meet, and shall otherwise meet
as required to fulfil its functions in accordance with
Rule M.9.
C. Observers
1. (a) Any Government not a party to the Convention
or any intergovernmental organisation may be
represented at meetings of the Commission
by an observer or observers, if such non-party
government or intergovernmental organisation
has previously attended any meeting of the
Commission, or if it submits its request in writing
to the Commission 60 days prior to the start of the

meeting, or if the Commission issues an invitation
to attend.
(b) Any non-governmental organisation which expresses an interest in matters covered by the
Convention, may be accredited as an observer.
Requests for accreditation must be submitted in
writing to the Commission 60 days prior to the
start of the meeting and the Commission may issue
an invitation with respect to such request. Such
submissions shall include the standard application
form for non-governmental organisations which
will be provided by the Secretariat. These
applications shall remain available for review by
Once a non-governmental organisation has been
accredited through the application process above,
it will remain accredited until the Commission
decides otherwise.
Observers from each non-governmental organisation will be allowed seating in the meeting.
However, seating limitations may require that the
number of observers from each non-governmental
organisation be limited. The Secretariat will notify
accredited non-governmental organisations of any
seating limitations in advance of the meeting.
(c) The Commission shall levy a registration fee
and determine rules of conduct, and may define
other conditions for the attendance of observers
accredited in accordance with Rule C.1.(a) and
(b). The registration fee will [ ] cover attendance at
the [ ] Biennial Commission Meeting to which it
relates and any other meeting of the Commission or
its subsidiary groups as provided in Rule C.2 in the
interval before the next [ ] Biennial Commission
Meeting.
2. Observers accredited in accordance with Rule C.1.(a)
and (b) are admitted to all meetings of the Commission
and the Technical Committee, and to any meetings of
subsidiary groups of the Commission and the Technical
Committee, except the Commissioners-only meetings,
meetings of the Bureau and the meetings of the Finance
and Administration Committee.
D. Credentials
1. (a) The names of all representatives of member
and non-member governments and observer
organisations to any meeting of the Commission or
committees, as specified in the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission, Technical and Scientific
Committees, shall be notified to the Secretary in
writing before their participation and/or attendance
at each meeting. For member governments, the
notification shall indicate the Commissioner, his/
her alternate(s) and advisers, and the head of the
national delegation to the Scientific Committee and
any alternate(s) as appropriate.
The written notification shall be made by
governments or the heads of organisations as the
case may be. In this context, governments means
the Head of State, the Head of Government, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs (including: on behalf
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Minister
188
RULES OF PROCEDURE
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
responsible for whaling or whale conservation

(including: on behalf of this Minister), the Head of
the Diplomatic Mission accredited to the seat of the
Commission or to the host country of the meeting
in question, or the Commissioner appointed under
Rule A.1.
Credentials for a Commissioner appointed for the
duration of a meeting must be issued as in D.1(a).
Thereafter, until the end of the meeting in question,
that Commissioner assumes all the powers of a
Commissioner appointed under A.1., including that
of issuing credentials for his/her delegation.
In the case of members of delegations who will
attend the [ ] Biennial Commission Meeting and its
associated meetings, the notification may be made
en bloc by submitting a list of the members who
will attend any of these meetings.
The Secretary, or his/her representative, shall
report on the received notifications at the beginning
of a meeting.
In case of any doubt as to the authenticity of
notification or in case of apparent delay in their
delivery, the Chair of the meeting shall convene an
ad hoc group of no more than one representative
from any Contracting Government present to decide
upon the question of participation in the meeting.
E. Decision-making
A decision of the Commission taken at a meeting, whether
by consensus or by vote, is not deemed adopted until the text
has either been provided to all Members of the Commission,
or presented to them by electronic means, and then
approved by the Commission. The text will also be made
simultaneously available to all other accredited participants.
The text shall normally be distributed or presented in
English and conveyed in the other working languages by
oral interpretation. This rule applies both to decisions of
the kinds specified in Rule J, and to other decisions of the
Commission, except those relating only to the conduct of
the current meeting. If the text of a proposed decision is
amended, the revised text shall be distributed or presented
in accordance with this rule. The authentic text of any such
decision shall be the English version.
The Commission shall make every effort to reach its
decisions by consensus. If all efforts to reach consensus have
been exhausted and no agreement reached, the following
Rules of Procedure shall apply:
1. Each Commissioner shall have the right to vote at
Plenary Meetings of the Commission and in his/
her absence his/her deputy or alternate shall have
such right. Experts and advisers may address Plenary
Meetings of the Commission but shall not be entitled to
vote. They may vote at the meetings of any committee
to which they have been appointed, provided that when
such vote is taken, representatives of any Contracting
Government shall only exercise one vote.
2. (a) The right to vote of representatives of any
Contracting Government shall be suspended
automatically when the annual payment of a
Contracting Government including any interest
due has not been received by the Commission by
the earliest of these dates:
3 months following the due date prescribed in
Regulation E.2 of the Financial Regulations; or
the day before the first day of the next [ ]
Biennial or Special Meeting of the Commission
if such a meeting is held within 3 months

following the due date; or
in the case of a vote by postal or other means,
the date upon which votes must be received if
this falls within 3 months following the due date.
This suspension of voting rights applies until
payment is received by the Commission.
(b) The Commissioner of a new Contracting Government shall not exercise the right to vote either at
meetings or by postal or other means: (i) until 30
days after the date of adherence, although they may
participate fully in discussions of the Commission;
and (ii) unless the Commission has received
the Governments financial contribution or part
contribution for the year prescribed in Financial
Regulation E.3., the day before the first day of the
[] Biennial or Special Meeting concerned.
3. (a) Where a vote is taken on any matter before the
Commission, a simple majority of those casting
an affirmative or negative vote shall be decisive,
except that a three-fourths majority of those casting
an affirmative or negative vote shall be required for
action in pursuance of Article V of the Convention.
(b) Action in pursuance of Article V shall contain
the text of the regulations proposed to amend the
Schedule. A proposal that does not contain such
regulatory text does not constitute an amendment
to the Schedule and therefore requires only a
simple majority vote. A proposal that does not
contain such regulatory text to revise the Schedule
but would commit the Commission to amend the
Schedule in the future can neither be put to a vote
nor adopted.
(c) At meetings of committees appointed by the
Commission, a simple majority of those casting an
affirmative or negative vote shall also be decisive.
The committee shall report to the Commission if the
decision has been arrived at as a result of the vote.
(d) Votes shall be taken by show of hands, or by roll call,
as in the opinion of the Chair, appears to be most
suitable. The election of the Chair, Vice-Chair, the
appointment of the Secretary of the Commission,
and the selection of IWC [ ] Biennial Meeting
venues shall, upon request by a Commissioner, all
proceed by secret ballot.
4. Between meetings of the Commission or in the case
of emergency, a vote of the Commissioners may be
taken by post, or other means of communication in
which case the necessary simple, or where required
three-fourths majority, shall be of the total number of
Contracting Governments whose right to vote has not
been suspended under paragraph 2.
F. Chair
1. The Chair of the Commission shall be elected from
time to time from among the Commissioners and shall
take office at the conclusion of the [ ] Biennial Meeting
at which he/she is elected. The Chair shall serve for a
period of [ ] two years and shall not be eligible for reelection as Chair until a further period of [ ] two years
has elapsed. The Chair shall, however, remain in office
until a successor is elected, if he/she agrees to do so.
The Chair is to serve the Commission, and as such,
shall serve in an individual capacity and not represent
the views of their Contracting Government, when
acting as Chair.
2. The duties of the Chair shall be:

(a) to preside at all meetings of the Commission and
Bureau;
(b) to decide all questions of order raised at meetings
of the Commission, subject to the right of any
Commissioner to appeal against any ruling of the
Chair.
(c) to call for votes and to announce the result of the
vote to the Commission;
(d) to develop, with appropriate consultation, draft
agenda for meetings of the Commission and Bureau.
(i) for [ ] Biennial Meetings:
in consultation with the [ ] Bureau, to
develop a draft agenda based on decisions
and recommendations made at the previous
[ ] Biennial Meeting for circulation
to all Contracting Governments and
Commissioners for review and comment not
less than 100 days in advance of the meeting;
on the basis of comments and proposals
received from Contracting Governments
and Commissioners under d(i) above, to
develop with the Secretary, an annotated
provisional agenda for circulation to all
Contracting Governments not less than 60
days in advance of the meeting;
(ii) for Special Meetings, the two-stage procedure
described in (i) above will be followed
whenever practicable, recognising that Rule
of Procedure J.1 still applies with respect to
any item of business involving amendment
of the Schedule or recommendations under
Article VI of the Convention.
(e) to sign, on behalf of the Commission, a report of the
proceedings of each [ ] biennial or other meeting of
the Commission and Bureau, for transmission to
Contracting Governments and others concerned as
an authoritative record of what transpired;
(f) generally, to make such decisions and give such
directions to the Secretary as will ensure, especially
in the interval between the meetings of the
Commission, that the business of the Commission
is carried out efficiently and in accordance with its
decision.
G. Vice-Chair
1. The Vice-Chair of the Commission shall be elected
from time to time from among the Commissioners
and shall preside at meetings of the Commission and
Bureau, or between them, in the absence or in the event
of the Chair being unable to act. He/she shall on those
occasions exercise the powers and duties prescribed for
the Chair. The Vice-Chair shall be elected for a period
of [ ] two years and shall not be eligible for re-election
as Vice-Chair until a further period of [ ] two years has
elapsed. He/she shall, however, remain in office until
a successor is elected, if he/she agrees to do so. The
Vice-Chair is to serve the Commission, and as such,
shall serve in an individual capacity and not represent
the views of their Contracting Government, when
acting as Vice-Chair.
H. Secretary
1. The Commission shall appoint a Secretary and
shall designate staff positions to be filled through
appointments made by the Secretary. The Commission
189
shall fix the terms of employment, rate of remuneration

including tax assessment and superannuation and
travelling expenses for the members of the Secretariat.
2. The Secretary is the executive officer of the Commission
and shall:
(a) be responsible to the Commission for the control
and supervision of the staff and management of its
office and for the receipt and disbursement of all
monies received by the Commission;
(b) make arrangements for all meetings of the
Commission, [ ] its committees and the Bureau and
provide necessary secretarial assistance;
(c) prepare and submit to the Chair a draft of the
Commissions budget for each two year period
and shall subsequently submit the budget to all
Contracting Governments and Commissioners as
early as possible before the [ ] Biennial Meeting;
(d) despatch by the most expeditious means available:
a draft agenda for the [ ] Biennial Commission
Meeting to all Contracting Governments and
Commissioners 100 days in advance of the
meeting for comment and any additions with
annotations they wish to propose;
(ii) an annotated provisional agenda to all
not less than 60 days in advance of the [ ]
Biennial Commission Meeting. Included in
the annotations should be a brief description
of each item, and in so far as possible,
documentation relevant to agenda items
should be referred to in the annotation and sent
to member nations at the earliest possible date;
receive, tabulate and publish notifications and
other information required by the Convention in
such form and manner as may be prescribed by the
Commission;
perform such other functions as may be assigned to
him/her by the Commission or its Chair;
where appropriate, provide copies or availability
to a copy of reports of the Commission including
reports of Observers under the International
Observer Scheme, upon request after such reports
have been considered by the Commission.
maintain the Commissions public web site, which
shall be continuously accessible to the extent
possible subject to maintenance requirements and
technical constraints.
(i)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
I. Chair of Scientific Committee

1. The Chair of the Scientific Committee may attend
meetings of the Commission and Technical Committee
in an ex officio capacity without vote, at the invitation
of the Chair of the Commission or Technical Committee
respectively in order to represent the views of the
J. Schedule amendments, recommendations under
Article VI and Resolutions
1. No item of business which involves amendment of the
Schedule to the Convention, recommendations under
Article VI of the Convention, or Resolutions of the
Commission, shall be the subject of decisive action
by the Commission unless the full draft text has been
circulated to the Commissioners at least 60 days in
advance of the meeting at which the matter is to be
discussed.
190
RULES OF PROCEDURE
2. Notwithstanding the advance notice requirements for

draft Resolutions in Rule J.1, at the recommendation
of the Chair in consultation with the [ ] Bureau, the
Commission may decide to consider urgent draft
Resolutions which arise after the 60 day deadline where
there have been important developments that warrant
action in the Commission. The full draft text of any such
Resolution must be circulated to all Commissioners
prior to the opening of the meeting at which the draft
Resolution is to be considered.
3. Notwithstanding Rules J.1 and J.2, the Commission
may adopt Resolutions on any matter that may arise
during a meeting only when consensus is achieved.
K. Financial
September to 31st August.
2. Any request to Contracting Governments for financial
contributions shall be accompanied by a statement of
the Commissions expenditure for the appropriate year,
actual or estimated.
3. Annual payments and other financial contributions by
Contracting Governments shall be made payable to the
Commission and shall be in pounds sterling.
L. Offices
1. The seat of the Commission shall be located in the
United Kingdom.
M. Committees
1. The Commission shall establish a Scientific Committee,
a Technical Committee and a Finance and Administration
Committee. Commissioners shall notify their desire to
be represented on the Scientific, Technical and Finance
and Administration Committees 28 days prior to the
meetings, and shall designate the approximate size of
their delegations.
2. The Chair may constitute such ad hoc committees as may
be necessary from time to time, with similar arrangements
for notification of the numbers of participants as in
paragraph 1 above where appropriate. Each committee
shall elect its Chair. The Secretary shall furnish
appropriate secretarial services to each committee.
3. Sub-committees and working groups may be designated
by the Commission to consider technical issues as
appropriate, and each will report to the Technical
Committee or the plenary session of the Commission as
the Commission may decide.
4. (a) The Scientific Committee shall review the current
scientific and statistical information with respect
to whales and whaling, shall review current
scientific research programmes of Governments,
other international organisations or of private
organisations, shall review the scientific permits
and scientific programmes for which Contracting
Governments plan to issue scientific permits,
shall consider such additional matters as may be
referred to it by the Commission or by the Chair
of the Commission, and shall submit reports and
recommendations to the Commission.
(b) Any ad hoc committee, sub-committee or working
group established to provide scientific advice shall
report to the Scientific Committee, which shall
review the report of such committee, sub-committee
or working group, and, as appropriate, make its own
recommendations on the subject matter.
5. The report of the Scientific Committee should be

completed and made available to all Commissioners
and posted on the Commissions public web site by the
opening date of the [ ] Biennial Commission Meeting
or within 14 days of the conclusion of the Scientific
Committee meeting, whichever is the sooner.
6. The Secretary shall be an ex officio member of the
Scientific Committee without vote.
7. The Technical Committee shall, as directed by the
Commission or the Chair of the Commission, prepare
reports and make recommendations on:
(a) Management principles, categories, criteria
and definitions, taking into account the recommendations of the Scientific Committee, as
a means of helping the Commission to deal with
management issues as they arise;
(b) technical and practical options for implementation
of conservation measures based on Scientific
Committee advice;
(c) the implementation of decisions taken by the
Commission through resolutions and through
Schedule provisions;
(d) Commission agenda items assigned to it;
(e) any other matters.
8. The Finance and Administration Committee shall
advise the Commission on expenditure, budgets, scale
of contributions, financial regulations, staff questions,
and such other matters as the Commission may refer to
it from time to time.
9. [ ] The Commission shall establish a Bureau. It
shall be comprised of the Chair of the Commission,
the Vice-Chair of the Commission, the Chair
of the Finance and Administration Committee,
and four Commissioners representing a range
of views and interests. Commissioners shall be
appointed to the Bureau for a period of two years
at Biennial Commission Meetings. In addition, the
Commissioner of the host Government for the next
meeting of the Commission will serve in an ex officio
capacity for a period of two years. The Secretary will
support Meetings of the Bureau.
The Chair of the Commission will serve as the
Chair of the Bureau and may call upon Chairs of
the Commissions sub-groups and committees to
participate in Bureau discussions, as appropriate.
The Bureau will support the work of the
Commission by providing advice to the Chair of the
Commission and the Secretariat on work on-going
under the Convention, especially at times when the
Commission is not in session. To this end, the Bureau
will:
provide advice to the Chair and Secretariat on
advise the Secretariat on administrative and
financial matters between meetings of the
Commission;
assist in the preparation for meetings of the
Commission and its sub-groups and committees;
review progress of work of the committees and subgroups;
provide support to the Chair during meetings of
the Commission, as may be requested by the Chair.
The Bureaus mandate is to assist with

process management. It is not a decision-making
forum and shall not deal with substantive or
policy matters under the Convention. The
Bureau may consider issues related to financial
or administrative tasks within the scope of the
Finance and Administration Committee, but only
in the context of making recommendations to that
Committee.
N. Languages of the Commission
1. English shall be the official language of the
Commission. English, French and Spanish shall be the
working languages of the Commission. Commissioners
may speak in any other language, if desired, it being
understood that Commissioners doing so will provide
their own interpreters. All official publications and
communications of the Commission shall be in English.
Agreed publications shall be available in English,
French and Spanish1.
O. Records of Meetings
1. The proceedings of the meetings of the Commission,
[ ] its committees and the Bureau shall be recorded in
summary form.
2. The text of each Commission decision adopted at a
meeting in accordance with Rule E, or by post, shall
be placed on the Commissions public web site in all
working languages within 14 days of the conclusion of
the meeting or adoption of the decision by post.
P. Reports and communications
1. Commissioners should arrange for reports on the subject
of whaling published in their own countries to be sent to
the Commission for record purposes.
2. The Chairs Report of the most recent [ ] Biennial
Commission Meeting or Meeting of the Bureau shall
be posted on the Commissions public web site in
English within two months of the end of the meeting
and in the other working languages as soon as possible
thereafter. It shall be published in the Annual Report of
the year just completed.
3. All individual and circular communications from the
be sent to both the Commissioner appointed under
Rule A.1. and to his/her Alternate designated or to the
focal or contact point created under Rule A.2. They
should also be sent to all accredited intergovernmental
observers. All circular communications from the
be posted on the Commissions public web site on
despatch, unless the Chair, after consulting with the
[ ] Bureau, deems that a confidential communication
is warranted (applicable only for staff issues, infraction
cases and information provided by Contracting
Governments with a request that it remain confidential),
1
As agreed at IWC/59 in Anchorage in 2007: i.e. simultaneous interpretation in French and Spanish in IWC Plenary and private meetings of
Commissioners, and translation into French and Spanish of: (1) Resolutions
and Schedule amendments; (2) the Chairs [ ] reports of [ ] biennial
meetings and meetings of the Bureau; (3) Annotated Provisional Agendas;
and (4) summaries of the Scientific Committee and working group reports.
Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2007: 56-57.
191
in which case the communication should be sent to the

Contracting Governments alone. A list of dates and
subject titles of such confidential communications shall
be presented to the next [ ] Biennial Meeting or to the
Bureau in years when the Commission does not meet.
Q. Commission Documents
1. Reports of meetings of all committees, subcommittees and working groups of the Commission are
confidential (i.e. reporting of discussions, conclusions
and recommendations made during a meeting is
prohibited) until the opening plenary session of the
Commission meeting to which they are submitted, or
in the case of intersessional meetings, until after they
have been dispatched by the Secretary to Contracting
Governments and Commissioners. This applies
equally to member governments and observers. Such
reports, with the exception of the report of the Finance
and Administration Committee, shall be distributed
to Commissioners, Contracting Governments and
accredited observers at the same time. Procedures
applying to the Scientific Committee are contained in
its Rules of Procedure E.5.(a) and E.5.(b).
2. Any document submitted to the Commission
for distribution to Commissioners, Contracting
Governments or members of the Scientific Committee
is considered to be in the public domain unless it is
designated by the author or government submitting it
to be restricted2. Such restriction is automatically lifted
when the report of the meeting to which it is submitted
becomes publicly available under 1. above.
3. Observers admitted under Rule of Procedure C.1.(a)
and (b) may submit Opening Statements which will
be included in the official documentation of the [ ]
Biennial or other Meeting concerned. They shall be
presented in the format and the quantities determined
by the Secretariat for meeting documentation.
The content of the Opening Statements shall be relevant
to matters under consideration by the Commission, and
shall be in the form of views and comments made to
the Commission in general rather than directed to any
individual or group of Contracting Governments.3
4. All meeting documents shall be included in the
Commissions archives in the form in which they were
considered at the meeting. All such documents dating
from 2011 onwards, and also earlier years where
feasible, shall be archived on the Commissions public
web site in an accessible fashion by year and category
of document.
R. Amendment of Rules
1. These Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Debate may
be amended from time to time by a simple majority
of the Commissioners voting, but the full draft text
of any proposed amendment shall be circulated to
the Commissioners at least 60 days in advance of the
meeting at which the matter is to be discussed.
2
This does not prevent Contracting Governments from consulting as
they see fit on such documents providing confidentiality is maintained as
described in Rule of Procedure Q.1.
3
[There is no intention that the Secretariat should conduct advance or exante reviews of such statements.]
192
financial regulations
A. Applicability
1. These regulations shall govern the financial administration of the International Whaling Commission.
2. They shall become effective as from the date decided by
the Commission and shall be read with and in addition
to the Rules of Procedure. They may be amended in the
same way as provided under RuleR.1 of the Rules of
Procedure in respect of those Rules.
3. In case of doubt as to the interpretation and application
of any of these regulations, the Chair is authorised to
give a ruling.
B. Financial Year
September to 31st August (Rules of Procedure, Rule K.1).
C. General Financial Arrangements
1. There shall be established a Research Fund and a General
Fund, and a Voluntary Fund for Small Cetaceans.
(a) The Research Fund shall be credited with
voluntary contributions and any such monies as the
Commission may allocate for research and scientific
investigation and charged with specific expenditure
of this nature.
(b) The General Fund shall, subject to the establishment
of any other funds that the Commission may
determine, be credited or charged with all other
income and expenditure.
(c) The details of the Voluntary Fund for Small
Cetaceans are given in Appendix 1.
The General Fund shall be credited or debited with the
balance on the Commissions Income and Expenditure
Account at the end of each financial year.
2. Subject to the restrictions and limitations of the
following paragraphs, the Commission may accept
funds from outside the regular contributions of
(a) The Commission may accept such funds to carry
out programmes or activities decided upon by the
Commission and/or to advance programmes and
activities which are consistent with the objectives
and provisions of the Convention.
(b) The Commission shall not accept external funds
from any of the following:
(i) Sources that are known, through evidence
available to the Commission, to have been
involved in illegal activities, or activities
contrary to the provisions of the Convention;
(ii) Individual companies directly involved
in legal commercial whaling under the
Convention;
(iii) Organisations which have deliberately
brought the Commission into public disrepute.
3. Monies in any of the Funds that are not expected to be
required for disbursement within a reasonable period
may be invested in appropriate Government or similar
loans by the Secretary in consultation with the Chair.
4. The Secretary shall:
(a) establish detailed financial procedures and
accounting records as are necessary to ensure
effective financial administration and control and
the exercise of economy;
(b) deposit and maintain the funds of the Commission

in an account in the name of the Commission in a
bank to be approved by the Chair;
(c) cause all payments to be made on the basis of
supporting vouchers and other documents which
ensure that the services or goods have been received,
and that payment has not previously been made;
(d) designate the officers of the Secretariat who
may receive monies, incur obligations and make
payments on behalf of the Commission;
(e) authorise the writing off of losses of cash, stores and
other assets and submit a statement of such amounts
written off to the Commission and the auditors with
the annual accounts.
5. The accounts of the Commission shall be audited
annually by a firm of qualified accountants selected
by the Commission. The auditors shall certify that
the financial statements are in accord with the books
and records of the Commission, that the financial
transactions reflected in them have been in accordance
with the rules and regulations and that the monies
on deposit and in hand have been verified. The most
recent audited financial statements and the audit report
shall be submitted to the [ ] Biennial Meeting or to the
Bureau in years when the Commission does not meet
and posted on the Commissions public website by the
opening of the [ ] Biennial Meeting or Meeting of the
Bureau.
D. Yearly Statements
1. At each [ ] Biennial Meeting, there shall be laid before
the Commission two financial statements:
(a) a provisional statement dealing with the actual and
estimated expenditure and income in respect of the
current financial year;
(b) the budget estimate of expenditure and income for
the ensuing two year period including the estimated
amount of the individual annual payment to be
requested of each Contracting Government for
each of the ensuing two years.
(c) in years when no Biennial Commission Meeting
is held the provisional statement for the current
financial year identified in regulation D.1.(a) shall
be laid before the Meeting of the Bureau.
(d) in years when no biennial Commission Meeting is
held the Bureau shall review the second half of the
two year budget.
Expenditure and income shall be shown under
appropriate sub-heads accompanied by such explanations as the Commission may determine.
2. The two financial statements identified in Regulation
D.1 shall be despatched by the most expeditious means
available to each Contracting Government and each
Commissioner not less than 60days in advance of the
[ ] Biennial Commission Meeting. They shall require
the Commissions approval after having been referred
to the Finance and Administration Committee for
consideration and recommendations. A copy of the final
accounts shall be sent to all Contracting Governments
after they have been audited.
In years when the Commission does not meet, the
provisional financial statement for the current year shall
be made available to each Contracting Government and

each Commissioner not less than 60 days in advance of
the Meeting of the Bureau.
3. Supplementary estimates may be submitted to the
Commission, as and when may be deemed necessary,
in a form consistent with the Annual Estimates. Any
supplementary estimate shall require the approval of
the Commission after being referred to the Finance
and Administration Committee for consideration and
recommendation.
E. Contributions
1. As soon as the Commission has approved the budget for
any year, the Secretary shall send a copy thereof to each
Contracting Government (in compliance with Rules of
Procedure, Rule K.2), and shall request it to remit its
annual payment.
2. Payment shall be in pounds sterling, drafts being made
payable to the International Whaling Commission and
shall be payable within 90 days of the said request
from the Secretary or by the following 28 February, the
due date whichever is the later. It shall be open to
any Contracting Government to postpone the payment
of any increased portion of the amount which shall be
payable in full by the following 31 August, which then
becomes the due date. Payment shall be by bank
transfer from an account belonging to the Contracting
Government or to a state institution of that Government.
3. New Contracting Governments whose adherence to
the Convention becomes effective during the first six
months of any financial year shall be liable to pay the
full amount of the annual payment for that year, but
only half that amount if their adherence falls within the
second half of the financial year. The due date for the
first payment by new Contracting Governments shall be
defined as 6 months from the date of adherence to the
Convention or before the first day of any [ ] Meeting
of the Commission or Bureau in which it participates,
whichever is the earlier.
Subsequent annual payments shall be paid in
accordance with Financial Regulation E.2.
4. The Secretary shall report at each [ ] Biennial Meeting
and Meeting of the Bureau the position as regards the
collection of annual payments. The report shall also
be sent to all Commissioners including those who
are not members of the Bureau before the beginning
of the Meeting of the Bureau in the years when the
5. For the purpose of application of Rule of Procedure E.2,
payments of membership dues shall only count as having
been received by the Commission when the funds have
been credited to the Commissions account unless the
payment has been made and the Commission is satisfied
that the delay in receipt is due to circumstances beyond
the control of the Contracting Government.
F. Arrears of Contributions
1. If a Contracting Governments annual payments have
not been received by the Commission within [ ] 24
months of the due date referred to under Regulation E.2
compound interest shall be added on the anniversary
of that day and each subsequent anniversary thereafter
at the rate of 2% above the base rate quoted by the
Commissions bankers on the day. The interest,
calculated to the nearest pound, shall by payable in
respect of complete years and continue to be payable in
respect of any outstanding balance until such time as the
amount in arrears, including interest, is settled in full.
193

including any interest due1, have not been received by
the Commission by the earliest of these dates:
3 months following the due date; or
the day before the first day of the next [ ] Biennial
or Special Meeting of the Commission or Meeting
of the Bureau if such a meeting is held within 3
months following the due date; or,
in the case of a vote by postal or other means, the
date upon which votes must be received if this falls
within 3 months following the due date,
the right to vote of the Contracting Government
concerned shall be suspended as provided under Rule
E.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
3. Any interest paid by a Contracting Government to the
Commission in respect of late annual payments shall be
credited to the General Fund.
4. Any payment to the Commission by a Contracting
Government in arrears with annual payments shall be
used to pay off debts to the Commission, including
interest due, in the order in which they were incurred.
including any interest due, have not been received by the
Commission in respect of a period of 3 financial years;
(a) no further annual contribution will be charged;
(b) interest will continue to be applied annually in
accordance with Financial Regulation F.1.;
(c) the provisions of this Regulation apply to the
Contracting Government for as long as the
provisions of Financial Regulations F.1. and F.2.
remain in effect for that Government;
(d) the Contracting Government concerned will be
entitled to attend meetings on payment of a fee
per delegate at the same level as Non-Member
Government observers;
(e) the provisions of this Regulation and of Financial
Regulations F.1. and F.2. will cease to have effect
for a Contracting Government if it makes a payment
of 2 years outstanding contributions and provides
an undertaking to pay the balance of arrears and the
interest within a further 2 years;
(f) interest applied to arrears in accordance with this
Regulation will accrue indefinitely except that, if
a Government withdraws from the Convention,
no further charges shall accrue after the date upon
which the withdrawal takes effect.
6. Unless the Commission decides otherwise, a Government which adheres to the Convention without having
paid to the Commission any financial obligations
incurred prior to its adherence shall, with effect from
the date of adherence, be subject to all the penalties
prescribed by the Rules of Procedure and Financial
Regulations relating to arrears of financial contributions
and interest thereon. The penalties shall remain in force
until the arrears, including any newly-charged interest,
have been paid in full.
A short-term concession of up to 500 pounds sterling will be given to any
Contracting Government to take account of remittances sent to cover annual
payments, including any interest due, that fall short of the balance owing by
up to that amount. This concession is to allow for variations in bank charges
and exchange rate that might otherwise reduce the value of the remittance
to a lower value than intended in pounds sterling and so leave a Contracting
Government with a balance of annual payments, including any interest
due outstanding. This short term concession will enable a Contracting
Government to maintain its right to vote. Any Contracting Government
with a balance outstanding above 500 pounds sterling will not be entitled
to the short-term concessionand its right to vote shall be suspended. The
shortfall of up to 500 pounds sterling allowed by the concession shall then
be carried forward to the next financial year as part of the balance of annual
payments, including any interest due to the Commission.
194
Appendix 1
VOLUNTARY FUND FOR SMALL CETACEANS
Purpose
The Commission decided at its 46th Annual Meeting in 1994 to
establish an IWC voluntary fund to allow for the participation
from developing countries in future small cetacean work
and requested the Secretary to make arrangements for the
creation of such a fund whereby contributions in cash and
in kind can be registered and utilised by the Commission.
Contributions
The Commission has called on Contracting Governments
and non-contracting Governments, intergovernmental
organisations and other entities as appropriate, in particular
those most interested in scientific research on small
cetaceans, to contribute to the IWC voluntary fund for small
cetaceans.
Acceptance of contributions from entities other than
Governments will be subject to the Commissions procedures
for voluntary contributions. Where funds or support in kind
are to be made available through the Voluntary Fund, the
donation will registered and administered by the Secretariat
in accordance with Commission procedures.
The Secretariat will notify all members of the
Commission on receipt of such voluntary contributions.
Where expenditure is incurred using these voluntary
funds the Secretariat will inform the donors of their
utilisation.
Distribution of Funds
1. Recognising that there are differences of view on the
legal competence of the Commission in relation to
small cetaceans, but aware of the need to promote the
development of increased participation by developing
countries, the following primary forms of disbursement
will be supported in accordance with the purpose of the
Voluntary Fund:
(a) provision of support for attendance of invited

participants at meetings of the Scientific
Committee;
(b) provision of support for research in areas, species
or populations or research methodology in small
cetacean work identified as of direct interest or
priority in the advice provided by the Scientific
Committee to the Commission;
(c) other small cetacean work in developing countries that
may be identified from time to time by the Commission
and in consultation with intergovernmental agencies
as requiring, or likely to benefit from support through
the Fund.
2. Where expenditure is proposed in support of invited
participants, the following will apply:
(a) invited participants will be selected through
consultation between the Chair of the Scientific
Committee, the Convenor of the appropriate subcommittee and the Secretary;
(b) the government of the country where the scientists
work will be advised of the invitation and asked if it
can provide financial support.
3. Where expenditure involves research activity, the
following will apply:
(a) the normal procedures for review of proposals and
recommendations by the Scientific Committee will
be followed;
(b) appropriate procedures for reporting of progress and
outcomes will be applied and the work reviewed;
(c) the Secretariat shall solicit the involvement, as
appropriate, of governments in the regions where
the research activity is undertaken.
195
Rules of Debate
A. Right to Speak
1. The Chair shall call upon speakers in the order in which
they signify their desire to speak.
2. A Commissioner or Observer may speak only if called
upon by the Chair, who may call a speaker to order if
his/her remarks are not relevant to the subject under
discussion.
3. A speaker shall not be interrupted except on a point of
order. He/she may, however, with the permission of the
Chair, give way during his/her speech to allow any other
Commissioner to request elucidation on a particular
point in that speech.
4. The Chair of a committee or working group may be
accorded precedence for the purpose of explaining the
conclusion arrived at by his/her committee or group.
B. Submission of Motions
1. Proposals and amendments shall normally be
introduced in writing in the working language of the
meeting and shall be submitted to the Secretariat which
shall circulate copies to all delegations in the session.
As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed at any
plenary session unless copies of it have been circulated
to all delegations normally no later than 6pm, or earlier
if so determined by the Chair in consultation with
the Commissioners, on the day preceding the plenary
session. The presiding officer may, however, permit
the discussion and consideration of amendments, or
motions, as to procedure, even though such amendments,
or motions have not been circulated previously.
C. Procedural Motions
may rise to a point of order, and the point of order shall
be immediately decided by the Chair in accordance
with these Rules of Procedure. A Commissioner may
appeal against any ruling of the Chair. The appeal shall
be immediately put to the vote and the question voted
upon shall be stated as: Shall the decision of the Chair
be overturned? The Chairs ruling shall stand unless
a majority of the Commissioners present and voting
otherwise decide. A Commissioner rising to a point
of order may not speak on the substance of the matter
under discussion.
2. The following motions shall have precedence in the
following order over all other proposals or motions
before the Commission:
(a) to adjourn the session;
(b) to adjourn the debate on the particular subject or
question under discussion;
(c) to close the debate on the particular subject or
question under discussion.
3.Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Chair may
suspend the meeting for a brief period at any time in
order to allow informal discussions aimed at reaching
consensus consistent with Rule E of the Rules of
Procedure.
D. Arrangements for Debate
1. The Commission may, in a proposal by the Chair or by
a Commissioner, limit the time to be allowed to each
speaker and the number of times the members of a

delegation may speak on any question. When the debate
is subject to such limits, and a speaker has spoken for
his allotted time, the Chair shall call him/her to order
without delay.
2. During the course of a debate the Chair may announce
the list of speakers, and with the consent of the
Commission, declare the list closed. The Chair may,
however, accord the right of reply to any Commissioner
if a speech delivered after he/she has declared the list
closed makes this desirable.
may move the adjournment of the debate on the
particular subject or question under discussion. In
addition to the proposer of the motion, a Commissioner
may speak in favour of, and two Commissioners may
speak against the motion, after which the motion shall
immediately be put to the vote. The Chair may limit the
time to be allowed to speakers under this rule.
4. A Commissioner may at any time move the closure of
the debate on the particular subject or question under
discussion, whether or not any other Commissioner has
signified the wish to speak. Permission to speak on the
motion for the closure of the debate shall be accorded
only to two Commissioners wishing to speak against
the motion, after which the motion shall immediately
be put to the vote. The Chair may limit the time to be
allowed to speakers under this rule.
E. Procedure for Voting on Motions and Amendments
1. A Commissioner may move that parts of a proposal
or of an amendment shall be voted on separately. If
objection is made to the request of such division, the
motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to
speak on the motion for division shall be accorded only
to two Commissioners wishing to speak in favour of,
and two Commissioners wishing to speak against, the
motion. If the motion for division is carried, those parts
of the proposal or amendments which are subsequently
approved shall be put to the vote as a whole. If all
operative parts of the proposal or of the amendment
have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall
be considered to have been rejected as a whole.
2. When the amendment is moved to a proposal, the
amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more
amendments are moved to a proposal, the Commission
shall first vote on the last amendment moved and then
on the next to last, and so on until all amendments have
been put to the vote. When, however, the adoption of one
amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another
amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to
the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted, the
amended proposal shall then be voted upon. A motion
is considered an amendment to a proposal if it merely
adds to, deletes from or revises part of that proposal.
3. If two or more proposals relate to the same question,
the Commission shall, unless it otherwise decides, vote
on the proposals in the order in which they have been
submitted. The Commission may, after voting on a
proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposal.
196
Rules of Procedure of the Technical Committee

A. Participation
1. Membership shall consist of those member nations that
elect to be represented on the Technical Committee.
Delegations shall consist of Commissioners, or their
nominees, who may be accompanied by technical
experts.
2. The Secretary of the Commission or a deputy shall be
an ex officio non-voting member of the Committee.
3. Observers may attend Committee meetings in
accordance with the Rules of the Commission.
B. Organisation
1. Normally the Vice-Chair of the Commission is the
Chair of the Technical Committee. Otherwise the
Chair shall be elected from among the members of the
Committee.
2. A provisional agenda for the Technical Committee
and each sub-committee and working group shall be
prepared by the Technical Committee Chair with the
assistance of the Secretary. After agreement by the
Chair of the Commission they shall be distributed to
Commissioners 30 days in advance of the [ ] Biennial
Meeting.
C. Meetings
1. The [ ] Meeting of the Technical Committee shall be
held between the Scientific Committee and Commission
meetings with reasonable overlap of meetings as
appropriate to agenda requirements. Special meetings
may be held as agreed by the Commission or the Chair
of the Commission.
2. Rules of conduct for observers shall conform with rules
established by the Commission for meetings of all
committees and plenary sessions.
D. Reports
1. Reports and recommendations shall, as far as possible,
be developed on the basis of consensus. However,
if a consensus is not achievable, the committee,
sub-committee or working group shall report the
different views expressed. The Chair or any national
delegation may request a vote on any issue. Resulting
recommendations shall be based on a simple majority
of those nations casting an affirmative or negative vote.
2. Documents on which recommendations are based
should be available on demand immediately following
each committee, sub-committee or working group
meeting.
3. Technical papers produced for the Commission may
be reviewed by the Committee for publication by the
Commission.
197
Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee

Terms of reference
The Scientific Committee, established in accordance with the Commissions Rule of Procedure M.1, has the general terms of reference defined in Rule of
Procedure M.4.
In this regard, the DUTIES of the Scientific Committee, can be seen as a progression from the scientific investigation of whales and their environment,
leading to assessment of the status of the whale stocks and the impact of catches upon them, and then to provision of management advice on the regulation of
whaling. This can be defined in the following terms for the Scientific Committee to:
Encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organise studies and investigations related to whales and whaling [Convention Article IV.1(a)]
Collect and analyse statistical information concerning the current condition and trend of whale stocks and the effects of whaling activities on them [Article
IV.1 (b)]
Study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning methods of maintaining and increasing the population of whale stocks [Article IV.1 (c)]
Provide scientific findings on which amendments to the Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of the Convention and to provide for the
conservation, development and optimum utilization of the whale resources [Article V.2 (a) and (b)]
Publish reports of its activities and findings [Article IV.2]
In addition, specific FUNCTIONS of the Scientific Committee are to:
Receive, review and comment on Special Permits issued for scientific research [Article VIII.3 and Schedule paragraph 30]
Review research programmes of Contracting Governments and other bodies [Rule of Procedure M.4]
SPECIFIC TOPICS of current concern to the Commission include:
Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:30]
Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43]
Assessment of stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling [Schedule paragraph 13(b)]
Development of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:42-3]
Effects of environmental change on cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49]
Scientific aspects of whale sanctuaries [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45:63]
Scientific aspects of small cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41]
Scientific aspects of whalewatching [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:49-50]
A. Membership and Observers

1. The Scientific Committee shall be composed of
scientists nominated by the Commissioner of each
Contracting Government which indicates that it wishes
to be represented on that Committee. Commissioners
shall identify the head of delegation and any alternate(s)
when making nominations to the Scientific Committee.
The Secretary of the Commission and relevant members
of the Secretariat shall be ex-officio non-voting members
of the Scientific Committee.
2. The Scientific Committee recognises that representatives
of Inter-Governmental Organisations with particular
relevance to the work of the Scientific Committee
may also participate as non-voting members, subject
to the agreement of the Chair of the Committee acting
according to such policy as the Commission may decide.
3. Further to paragraph 2 above the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) shall have similar status in the Scientific
Committee.
4. Non-member governments may be represented by
observers at meetings of the Scientific Committee,
subject to the arrangements given in Rule C.1(a) of the
Commissions Rules of Procedure.
5. Any non-governmental organisation sending an
accredited observer to a meeting of the Commission
may nominate a scientifically qualified observer to be
present at meetings of the Scientific Committee. Any
such nomination must reach the Secretary not less than
60 days before the start of the meeting in question and
must specify the scientific qualifications and relevant
experience of the nominee. The Chair of the Scientific
Committee shall decide upon the acceptability of any
nomination but may reject it only after consultation
with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission.
Observers admitted under this rule shall not participate
in discussions but the papers and documents of the
Scientific Committee shall be made available to them at
the same time as to members of the Committee.
6. The Chair of the Committee, acting according to

such policy as the Commission or the Scientific
Committee may decide, may invite qualified scientists
not nominated by a Commissioner to participate by
invitation or otherwise in committee meetings as nonvoting contributors. They may present and discuss
documents and papers for consideration by the Scientific
Committee, participate on sub-committees, and they
shall receive all Committee documents and papers.
(a) Convenors will submit suggestions for Invited
Participants (including the period of time they
would like them to attend) to the Chair (copied to
the Secretariat) not less than four months before
the meeting in question. The Convenors will base
their suggestions on the priorities and initial agenda
identified by the Committee and Commission at
the previous meeting. The Chair may also consider
offers from suitably qualified scientists to contribute
to priority items on the Committees agenda if they
submit such an offer to the Secretariat not less
than four months before the meeting in question,
providing information on the contribution they
believe that they can make. Within two weeks of
this, the Chair, in consultation with the Convenors
and Secretariat, will develop a list of invitees.
(b) The Secretary will then promptly issue a letter of
invitation to those potential Invited Participants
suggested by the Chair and Convenors. That
letter will state that there may be financial support
available, although invitees will be encouraged to
find their own support. Invitees who wish to be
considered for travel and subsistence will be asked
to submit an estimated airfare (incl. travel to and
from the airport) to the Secretariat, within 2 weeks.
Under certain circumstances (e.g. the absence of
a potential participant from their institute), the
Secretariat will determine the likely airfare.
198
rules of procedure of the scientific committee
At the same time as (b) a letter will be sent to

the government of the country where the scientists
is domiciled for the primary purpose of enquiring
whether that Government would be prepared to pay
for the scientists participation. If it is, the scientist
is no longer an Invited Participant but becomes a
national delegate.
(c) At least three months before the meeting, the
Secretariat will supply the Chair with a list of
participants and the estimated expenditure for each,
based on (1) the estimated airfare, (2) the period
of time the Chair has indicated the IP should be
present and (3) a daily subsistence rate based on
the actual cost of the hotel deemed most suitable by
the Secretary and Chair1, plus an appropriate daily
allowance.
At the same time as (c) a provisional list of the
proposed Invited Participants will be circulated
to Commissioners, with a final list attached to the
Report of the Scientific Committee.
(d) The Chair will review the estimated total cost
for all suggested participants against the money
available in the Commissions budget. Should there
be insufficient funds, the Chair, in consultation with
the Secretariat and Convenors where necessary, will
decide on the basis of the identified priorities, which
participants should be offered financial support and
the period of the meeting for which that support
will be provided. Invited Participants without IWC
support, and those not supported for the full period,
may attend the remainder of the meeting at their
own expense.
(e) At least two months before the meeting, the
Secretary will send out formal confirmation of
the invitations to all the selected scientists, in
accordance with the Commissions Guidelines,
indicating where appropriate that financial support
will be given and the nature of that support.
(f) In exceptional circumstances, the Chair, in
consultation with the Convenors and Secretariat,
may waive the above time restrictions.
(g) The letter of invitation to Invited Participants will
include the following ideas:
Under the Committees Rules of Procedure,
Invited Participants may present and discuss
papers, and participate in meetings (including
those of subgroups). They are entitled to receive
all Committee documents and papers. They
may participate fully in discussions pertaining
to their area of expertise. However, discussions
of Scientific Committee pro-cedures and
policies are in principle limited to Committee
members nominated by member governments.
Such issues will be identified by the Chair of
the Committee during discussions. Invited
Participants are also urged to use their discretion
as regards their involvement in the formulation
of potentially controversial recommendations
to the Commission; the Chair may at his/her
discretion rule them out of order.
(h) After an Invited Participant has his/her participation
confirmed through the procedures set up above, a
Contracting Government may grant this person
national delegate status, thereby entitling him/her

to full participation in Committee proceedings,
without prejudice to funding arrangements
previously agreed upon to support the attendance of
the scientist in question.
7.A small number of interested local scientists may
be permitted to observe at meetings of the Scientific
Committee on application to, and at the discretion of,
the Chair. Such scientists should be connected with
the local Universities, other scientific institutions or
organisations, and should provide the Chair with a note
of their scientific qualifications and relevant experience
at the time of their application.
[Invited participants who choose to stay at a cheaper hotel will receive the
actual rate for their hotel plus the same daily allowance.]
B. Agenda
1. The initial agenda for the Committee meeting of the
following year shall be developed by the Committee
prior to adjournment each year. The agenda should
identify, as far as possible, key issues to be discussed at
the next meeting and specific papers on issues should be
requested by the Committee as appropriate.
2. The provisional agenda for the Committee meeting shall
be circulated for comment 60 days prior to the Annual
Meeting of the Committee. Comments will normally
be considered for incorporation into the draft agenda
presented to the opening plenary only if received by
the Chair 21 days prior to the beginning of the Annual
Meeting.
C. Organisation
1. The Scientific Committee shall include standing subcommittees and working groups by area or species, or
other subject, and a standing sub-committee on small
cetaceans. The Committee shall decide at each meeting
on sub-committees for the coming year.
2. The sub-committees and working groups shall prepare
the basic documents on the identification, status and
trends of stocks, including biological parameters, and
related matters as necessary, for the early consideration
of the full Committee.
3. The sub-committees, except for the sub-committee
on small cetaceans, shall concentrate their efforts on
stocks of large cetaceans, particularly those which are
currently exploited or for which exploitation is under
consideration, or for which there is concern over their
status, but they may examine matters relevant to all
cetaceans where appropriate.
4. The Chair may appoint other sub-committees as
appropriate.
5. The Committee shall elect from among its members
a Chair and Vice-Chair who will normally serve for
a period of three years. They shall take office at the
conclusion of the annual meeting at which they are
elected. The Vice-Chair shall act for the Chair in his/
her absence.
The election process shall be undertaken by the heads
of national delegations who shall consult widely before
nominating candidates2. The Vice-Chair will become
Chair at the end of his/her term (unless he/she declines),
and a new Vice-Chair will then be elected. If the ViceChair declines to become Chair, then a new Chair must
also be elected. If the election of the Chair or ViceChair is not by consensus, a vote shall be conducted by
The Commissions Rule of Procedure on voting rights (rule E.2) also
applies to the Scientific Committee.
the Secretary and verified by the current Chair. A simple

majority shall be decisive. In cases where a vote is tied,
the Chair shall have the casting vote. If requested by
a head of delegation, the vote shall proceed by secret
ballot. In these circumstances, the results shall only
be reported in terms of which nominee received the
most votes, and the vote counts shall not be reported
or retained.
D. Meetings
1. Meetings of the Scientific Committee as used in
these rules include all meetings of subgroups of the
Committee, e.g. sub-committees, working groups,
workshops, etc.
2. The Scientific Committee shall meet prior to the [ ]
Biennial Meeting of the Commission or in years when
the Commission does not meet, the Scientific Committee
shall meet prior to the meeting of the Bureau. Special
meetings of the Scientific Committee or its subgroups
may be held as agreed by the Commission or the Chair
of the Commission.
3. The Scientific Committee will organise its work in
accordance with a schedule determined by the Chair
with the advice of a group comprising sub-committee/
working group chairs and relevant members of the
Secretariat.
E. Scientific Papers and Documents
The following documents and papers will be considered by
the Scientific Committee for discussion and inclusion in its
report to the Commission:
1. Progress Reports. Each nation having information on
the biology of cetaceans, cetacean research, the taking
of cetaceans, or other matters it deems appropriate
should prepare a brief progress report following in the
format agreed by the Committee.
2. Special Reports. The Committee may request special
reports as necessary on matters to be considered by the
Committee for the following year.
3. Sub-committee Reports. Reports of the sub-committees
or working groups shall be included as annexes to
the Report to the Commission. Recommendations
contained therein shall be subject to modification by the
full Committee before inclusion in its Report.
4. Scientific and Working Papers.
(a) Any scientist may submit a scientific paper for
consideration by the Committee. The format and
submission procedure shall be in accordance with
guidelines established by the Secretariat with the
concurrence of the Committee. Papers published
elsewhere may be distributed to Committee
members for information as relevant to specific
topics under consideration.
(b) Scientific papers will be considered for discussion
and inclusion in the papers of the Committee only
if the paper is received by the Secretariat on or
by the first day of the annual Committee meeting,
intersessional meeting or any sub-group. Exceptions
to this rule can be granted by the Chair of the
Committee where there are exceptional extenuating
circumstances.
(c) Working papers will be distributed for discussion
only if prior permission is given by the Chair of
the committee or relevant sub-group. They will be
archived only if they are appended to the meeting
report.
199
(d) The Scientific Committee may receive and consider

unpublished scientific documents from nonmembers of the Committee (including observers)
and may invite them to introduce their documents
at a meeting of the Committee provided that they
are received under the same conditions (with regard
to timing etc.) that apply to members.
5. Publication of Scientific Papers and Reports.
(a) Scientific papers and reports considered by the
Committee that are not already published shall be
included in the Commissions archives in the form
in which they were considered by the Committee
or its sub-committees. Papers submitted to
meetings shall be available on request at the same
time as the report of the meeting concerned (see
(b) below).
(b) Scientific Committee shall be distributed to
all Commissioners in accordance with the
Commissions Rule of Procedure M.5. [ ]
Reports of intersessional Workshops or Special
Committee Meetings are confidential until they
have been dispatched by the Secretary to the full
Committee, Commissioners and Contracting
Governments.
Reports of intersessional Steering Groups or Subcommittees are confidential until they have been
discussed by the Scientific Committee, normally at
an Annual Meeting.
In this context, confidential means that reporting
of discussions, conclusions and recommendations
is prohibited. This applies equally to Scientific
Committee
members,
invited
participants
and observers. Reports shall be distributed to
Commissioners, Contracting Governments and
accredited observers at the same time.
The Scientific Committee should identify the
category of any intersessional meetings at the time
they are recommended.
(c) Scientific papers and reports (revised as
necessary) may be considered for publication by
the Commission. Papers shall be subject to peer
review before publication. Papers submitted shall
follow the Guidelines for Authors published by the
Commission.
F. Review of Scientific Permits
1. When proposed scientific permits are sent to the
Secretariat before they are issued by national
governments the Scientific Committee shall review the
scientific aspects of the proposed research at its annual
meeting, or during a special meeting called for that
purpose and comment on them to the Commission.
2. The review process shall take into account guidelines
issued by the Commission.
3. The proposed permits and supporting documents
should include specifics as to the objectives of the
research, number, sex, size, and stock of the animals to
be taken, opportunities for participation in the research
by scientists of other nations, and the possible effect on
conservation of the stock resulting from granting the
permits.
4. Preliminary results of any research resulting from the
permits should be made available for the next meeting
of the Scientific Committee as part of the national
progress report or as a special report, paper or series
of papers.
200
rules of procedure of the scientific committee
G. Financial Support for Research Proposals

1. The Scientific Committee shall identify research needs.
2. It shall consider unsolicited research proposals seeking
financial support from the Commission to address
these needs. A sub-committee shall be established to
review and rank research proposals received 4 months
in advance of the Annual Meeting and shall make
recommendations to the full Committee.
3. The Scientific Committee shall recommend in priority
order those research proposals for Commission financial
support as it judges best meet its objectives.
H. Availability of data
The Scientific Committee shall work with the Secretariat
to ensure that catch and scientific data that the Commission
holds are archived and accessible using modern computer
data handling techniques. Access to such data shall be
subject to the following rules.
1. Information identified in Section VI of the Schedule
that shall be notified or forwarded to the IWC or other
body designated under Article VII of the Convention.
This information is available on request through the
Secretariat to any interested persons with a legitimate
claim relative to the aims and purposes of the
Convention3.
2. Information and reports provided where possible under
Section VI of the Schedule.
When such information is forwarded to the IWC a
covering letter should make it clear that the information
or report is being made available, and it should identify
the pertinent Schedule paragraph under which the
information or report is being submitted.
Information made available to the IWC under this
provision is accessible to accredited persons as defined
under 4. below, and additionally to other interested
persons subject to the agreement of the government
submitting the information or report.
Such information already held by the Commission is not
regarded as having been forwarded until such clarification
of its status is received from the government concerned.
3. Information neither required nor requested under the
Schedule but which has been or might be made available
to the Commission on a voluntary basis.
This information is of a substantially different status
from the previous two types. It can be further divided
into two categories:
(a) Information collected under International Schemes.
(i) Data from the IWC sponsored projects.
(ii) Data from the International Marking Scheme.
[The Government of Norway notes that for reasons of domestic legislation

it is only able to agree that data it provides under this paragraph are made
available to accredited persons.]
(iii) Data obtained from international collaborative

activities which are offered by the sponsors and
accepted as contributions to the Comprehensive
Assessment, or proposed by the Scientific
Committee itself.
Information collected as the result of IWC
sponsored activities and/or on a collaborative basis
with other organisations, governments, institutions
or individuals is available within those contributing
bodies either immediately, or, after mutual
agreement between the IWC and the relevant body/
person, after a suitable time interval to allow first
use rights to the primary contributors.
(b) Information collected under national programmes,
or other than in (a).
Information in this category is likely to be provided
by governments under special conditions and would
hence be subject to some degree of restriction of
access. This information can only be held under the
following conditions:
(i)A minimum level of access should be that
such data could be used by accredited persons
during the Scientific Committee meetings
using validated techniques or methods agreed
by the Scientific Committee. After the meeting,
at the request of the Scientific Committee,
such data could be accessed by the Secretariat
for use with previously specified techniques
or validated programs. Information thus made
available to accredited persons should not be
passed on to third parties but governments
might be asked to consider making such
records more widely available or accessible.
(ii) The restrictions should be specified at the time
the information is provided and these should
be the only restrictions.
(iii) Restrictions on access should not discriminate
amongst accredited persons.
(iv) All information held should be documented
(i.e. described) so that accredited persons know
what is held, along with stated restrictions on
the access to it and the procedures needed to
obtain permission for access.
4.Accredited persons are those scientists defined under
sections A.1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Scientific Committee. Invited participants are also
considered as accredited during the intersessional
period following the meeting which they attend.

RS67 AnnualReport2012 W Cover

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RS67 AnnualReport2012 W Cover

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annual Report

The international whaling commission was constituted under the

International Whaling Commission

List of Members of the Commission

Antigua and Barbuda

Dr. S. Brockington, Executive Secretary to the Commission, 18 March 2013

Chairs Report: Contents

election of chair and vice-chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Environmental and health issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delegates and Observers Attending the 64th Annual Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

SUMMARY OF MAIN OUTCOMES, DECISIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS

Summary of decisions and required actions

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

Whale killing methods

Scientific permits and

Safety issues at sea

Summary of decisions and required actions

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

Chairs Report of the 64th Annual Meeting

to enjoy their stay in Panama and to appreciate the many

sixty-fourth annual meeting

With regard to Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

its current delimitation or another that may be established in the future,

Brazil stated that the primary intention in creating the

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

support from the Scientific Committee for the proposal, and

sixty-fourth annual meeting

(4) the willingness of a significant proportion of the

the organisation. It considered that advances to find common

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

For Antarctic minke whales, an ongoing issue was

An in-depth assessment also needs information on stock

sixty-fourth annual meeting

would be possible to establish the reason for the different

separate assessments can be carried out by population

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

6.4 Western North Pacific gray whales

separate gray whale populations, and recalled the sightings

sixty-fourth annual meeting

information such as calving intervals, abundance

In the North Pacific, Japan reported that in February 2011,

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

cruises will be invaluable in the forthcoming in-depth

7.1.1.1 Continuation of work on developing SLAs for

The Scientific Committee had developed and the Commission

J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14, Item 10.9 [2013].

The Scientific Committee received a brief report from

At the 2010 Annual Meeting it was agreed that the

sixty-fourth annual meeting

The Scientific Committee will continue to monitor the

In 2002, the Scientific Committee had recommended that

Setting of catch limits for an even number of years

At IWC/64 the Commission considered a change from

to set catch limits for blocks of even numbers of years up

A total of 51 bowhead whales were struck in 2011 resulting

There were no discussions relating to the Annual Review.

The Russian Federation reported that a total of 128 gray

Austria asked the USA to clarify the domestic situation, and

annual report of the international whaling commission 2012

to satisfy these requirements was underway. The USA

that the Commission note the Review of Measures